Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01552/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01552-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEXANDER OJINGUA,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-1552 JAM DB PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Liudmyla Iegorova has requested authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On November 6, 2019, the Court received as undeliverable mail correspondence sent from 

the Court. Pursuant to Local Rule 183 if a plaintiff fails to notify the Court within sixty-three 

(63) days of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute. Local Rule 183(b). Here, the sixty-three-day deadline has long passed and plaintiff 

has not provided a current address.

ANALYSIS

The factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution 

are as follows: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 

Case 2:19-cv-01552-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 3
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

disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Hernandez v. City of 

El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 

1992); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal is a harsh penalty that 

should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 398; Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1260.

Failure of a party to comply with the any order of the court “may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or herself 

without an attorney is nonetheless bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local 

Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). A party’s failure to comply with applicable 

rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local 

Rules. Id.

Here, plaintiff failed to comply with the Local Rules. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to 

provide the Court with a current address. The Court provided plaintiff ample time to provide a 

current address but plaintiff has failed to do so. 

In this regard, plaintiff’s lack of prosecution of this case renders the imposition of 

monetary sanctions futile. Moreover, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the 

court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all support the 

imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits 

counsels against dismissal. However, plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action in any way makes 

disposition on the merits an impossibility. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this 

action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute as well as plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with the Court’s Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 12, 2019 complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice; and

2. This action be closed.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days 

Case 2:19-cv-01552-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 

order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 27, 2020 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/iegorova1552.dlop.f&rs

Case 2:19-cv-01552-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3