Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01872/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01872-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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 

MANDEEP SINGH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UR M. JADDOU, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1872 DJC AC PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro se and paid the filing fee. ECF No. 1. The 

action was accordingly referred to the undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local 

Rule”) 302(c)(21). On August 14, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7), set to 

be heard on the papers on October 9, 2024. ECF No. 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff 

was required to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition within 14 days of the motion being 

filed. In this case, the deadline was August 28, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition. Concerned that plaintiff had abandoned this case, the court issued 

an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 

12. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure respond within 14 days could lead to a recommendation 

that the action be dismissed. Plaintiff again 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 

Case 2:24-cv-01872-DJC-AC Document 13 Filed 11/04/24 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 

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: November 4, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01872-DJC-AC Document 13 Filed 11/04/24 Page 2 of 2