(PC) Davis v. Unknown ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDDIE DAVIS, No. 2:22-CV-0145-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 7, 2022, while the action was pending in United States District 19 Court for the Northern District of California, Plaintiff was directed to file a complaint within 30 20 days on the form provided. See ECF No. 2. To date, plaintiff has not complied. 21 The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 22 See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 23 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 24 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 25 prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 26 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 27 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 28 sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 1 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 2 | there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 3 | 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an 4 | order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 5 | 1992). 6 Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiffs failure to file a 7 | complaint as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 8 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, 9 | without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 | objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 14 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 15 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 | Dated: April 18, 2022 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28