Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02855/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02855-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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 

JAMES LEONARD BUTLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

W. GREGORY KLEIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-2855-DJC-SCR 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff James Leonard Butler is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to 

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

December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

ECF Nos. 1 and 2. On August 28, 2024, this Court screened the complaint per the screening 

process required by the IFP statute and dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a claim. ECF No. 4. The Court’s order allowed 

Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies and noted the amended 

complaint “must include a sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8.” ECF No. 

4 at 5. The Order warned that noncompliance may result in a recommendation of dismissal. Id.

at 5-6. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. 

 On October 15, 2024, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to 

show cause, in writing, within 14 days why the failure to file an amended complaint should not 

Case 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR Document 6 Filed 12/04/24 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 

result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 5. The 

Order warned that if Plaintiff failed to respond the Court would recommend dismissal pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and Local Rule 110. More than 14 days have passed, and 

Plaintiff has not filed a response. 

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). “The public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of 

dismissal, particularly given the heavy caseload in this District. The third factor is neutral given 

that Defendants have not yet appeared, but “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that 

witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). The fourth factor weighs against dismissal. The Court has considered 

less drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate, particularly 

given that Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show Cause issued over six weeks ago. 

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 fourteen (14) 

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 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR Document 6 Filed 12/04/24 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 

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 3, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR Document 6 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 3