1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARTIN LEE FOSTER, No. 2:25-CV-2198-DC-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 LITTLES,
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
18 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 On September 23, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to resolve the fee status for
20 this case within 30 days. See ECF No. 7 (order granting extension of time). Following Plaintiff’s
21 notice of change of address, the order granting an extension of time at ECF No. 7 was re-served
22 on Plaintiff at his current address on October 29, 2025. Plaintiff has been warned that failure to
23 resolve the fee status may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to
24 comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, Plaintiff has not complied.
25 The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal.
26 See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal
27 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in
28 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of
1 | prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;
2 || and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
3 || 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate
4 || sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone,
5 || 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where
6 || there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.
7 || 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an
8 | order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
9 | 1992).
10 Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiffs failure to resolve the fee
11 || status for this case as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.
12 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed,
13 || without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.
14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
15 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
16 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
17 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
18 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See
19 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
21 | Dated: December 17, 2025 = Co
22 DENNIS M. COTA
33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.