Diesslin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EMMANUEL REEVES, No. 2:22-CV-2084-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER LEWIS, et al., and Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 24, 2024, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s complaint was appropriate for service and directed Plaintiff to submit documents for service by the United States Marshal within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to submit the required documents may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, Plaintiff has not complied. The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those…