Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00005/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00005-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES EDWARD TAYLOR, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-0005 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On May 23, 2024, defendant filed two motions to compel and a motion for judgment on 

the pleadings. ECF Nos. 33-35. On June 4, 2024, defendant filed a third motion to compel. ECF 

No. 36. After plaintiff failed to respond to any of the motions, he was ordered to do so within 

twenty-one days and cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 41. The twenty-one-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not 

filed a response to any of the motions or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00005-DJC-AC Document 42 Filed 08/14/24 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

move forward without plaintiff’s participation, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 

assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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 13, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-00005-DJC-AC Document 42 Filed 08/14/24 Page 2 of 2