(PS) Page v. County of Sacramento

Sep 1, 2026

2:25-cv-01706

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the undersigned for pretrial purposes by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule“) 302(c)(21). On August 7, 2025, the court granted plaintiff‘s in forma pauperis (“IFP“) application but rejected the complaint, granting plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to do so could lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the time limit. On September 22, 2025, the court issued an order to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 5. Finding the First Amended Complaint frivolous, the undersigned recommended dismissal of this case. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff filed untimely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. ECF No. 7. In light of the objections, the District Judge assigned to this case adopted the Findings and Recommendations in part and rejected them in part, such that plaintiff was given another opportunity to amend the complaint. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed a “supplement of evidence” to his objections, but he did not file the required Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 9. The undersigned issued another order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff did not respond. Plaintiff has not responded to the court‘s orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case.

In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has considered “(1) the public‘s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court‘s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot move forward without plaintiff‘s participation, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court‘s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge‘s Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court‘s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 31, 2026

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE