(PC) Sims v. Sacramento Sheriff's Dept.

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
BASILIO TREVON SIMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
No. 2:25-cv-02849 SCR P
ORDER AND
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed October 28, 2025, the undersigned
found plaintiff’s first amended complaint defective and granted him 30 days to file an amended
complaint. ECF No. 18. The undersigned warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in
the recommendation that the action be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Id. at 6. More than 30 days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended
complaint or otherwise responded to the order. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that
the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and
failure to comply with a court order, Local Rule 110.
When deciding whether to recommend dismissal for failure to comply with a court order,
the court must consider “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
Case 2:25-cv-02849-DC-SCR Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 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
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 plaintiff’s complaint was screened out and defendant was not served, 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, but less so if plaintiff is not precluded from litigating this
matter. The court has considered less drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without
prejudice is appropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly
appoint a District Judge to this matter.
In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See
Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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 twenty-one 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: January 5, 2026
Case 2:25-cv-02849-DC-SCR Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2