1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DANIEL LEE PASCHAL, No. 2:25-cv-2438 DAD AC PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 EDWARD MITCHELL DODSON,
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the
18 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On September 23,
19 2025, the court granted plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application but rejected the
20 complaint, granting plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was
21 cautioned that failure to do so could lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
22 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the time limit. On October 29, 2025, the court
23 issued an order to show cause by November 12, 2025 why this case should not be dismissed for
24 failure to prosecute. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s orders, nor taken any
25 action to prosecute this case.
26 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has
27 considered “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to
28 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
1 || disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v.
2 | Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot
3 || move forward without plaintiffs participation, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of
4 | dismissal.
5 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without
6 || prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R.
7 || Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.
8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
9 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one
10 | (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written
11 || objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
12 | Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
13 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
14 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
15 | DATED: November 20, 2025 ~
16 Attu —Clone_
ALLISON CLAIRE
17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
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.