Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02736/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02736-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

CHARNAE BIGGINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WINN COMPANIES, LLC, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:24-cv-2736 TLN AC PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On October 18, 2024, 

the court granted plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application but rejected the complaint, 

granting plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was cautioned that 

failure to file an amended complaint could lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the time limit. On November 20, 2024, the 

court issued an order to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute. ECF No. 4. 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 

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 

Case 2:24-cv-02736-TLN-AC Document 5 Filed 12/11/24 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 

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 these 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: December 11, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-02736-TLN-AC Document 5 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 2