(PC) DeOllas v. County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY EUGENE DeOLLAS, II, No. 2:22-cv-00906 KJM SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 20 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 23, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within 21 days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 24 findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 1 | court[.]”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record. The court notes that when determining whether to dismiss a case for 3 || failure to comply with a court order and/or failure to prosecute, the court must weigh the 4 || following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 5 || need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 6 || favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 7 || Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted) (applying standard 8 | for dismissal based on failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 9 || 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (same standard for dismissal based on failure to prosecute). The court has 10 | considered these factors and finds they weigh in favor of dismissal. The magistrate judge 11 | originally ordered plaintiff to file a second amended complaint in March 2023. See Prior Order 12 | (Mar. 31, 2023), ECF No. 8. Plaintiff was then granted multiple extensions of time. See Prior 13 | Order (May 16, 2023), ECF No. 10; Prior Order (Aug. 1, 2023), ECF No. 13; Prior Order (Oct. 14 | 30, 2023), ECF No. 15; Prior Order (June 3, 2024), ECF No. 18. The court need not wait 15 | indefinitely for plaintiff to file an amended complaint and finds at this point—less drastic 16 | alternatives are not available—the magistrate judge warned plaintiff that failure to comply with 17 || the court’s order could result in dismissal. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 19 1. The findings and recommendations, ECF No. 19, are adopted in full; 20 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed without further leave to amend for 21 | failure to state a claim; and 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 23 || DATED: October 4, 2024. 25 STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28