Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01812/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01812-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Peterson
Plaintiff
Secretary of State
Defendant

Document Text:

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

WILLIAM PETERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECRETARY OF STATE, Division of 

Election,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-01812-TLN-CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil complaint and this matter was referred to the undersigned by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). By order signed and filed on September 

12, 2024 (ECF No. 3), the undersigned screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 

advised plaintiff of the deficiencies in the complaint, and granted plaintiff thirty days to file an 

amended complaint. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a further amended complaint would

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time granted for plaintiff to file an 

amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor sought an 

extension of time to do so.

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-01812-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 11/07/24 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 the factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case.

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, plaintiff 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.” 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: 11/06/24

8, pete24cv1812.fta.fr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01812-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 11/07/24 Page 2 of 2