1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY J. CRAGO, No. 2:25-cv-00086-DC-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY TOWING ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On January 8, 2025, plaintiff Mary J. Crago, proceeding without counsel, filed the initial 19 complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.1 (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The Court granted 20 plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed her complaint with leave to amend. 21 (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on May 28, 2025. (ECF No. 9.) 22 The Court issued findings and recommendations that the FAC be dismissed without leave to 23 amend. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on 24 September 2, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) In the objections, plaintiff stated that she wanted to attend the 25 “self help” day on October 3, 2025, and requested a “pacer account fee waiver.” (ECF No. 11.) 26 The Court vacated the findings and recommendations and granted plaintiff leave to file a second 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 § 636(b). 1 |} amended complaint within 30 days after attending the Court’s Pro Se Help Day. (ECF No. 12.) 2 || Over 30 days have passed since the Pro Se Help Day, and plaintiff has not filed an amended 3 || complaint. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint could result in a 4 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 12 at 2.) The time granted for plaintiff to 5 || file an amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor 6 || sought an extension of time to do so. 7 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 8 || considered ‘“(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 9 || manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 10 || disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 11 | Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot 12 || move forward without plaintiffs participation, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of 13 || dismissal. 14 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 15 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and 16 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 19 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 20 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 21 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 22 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 23 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 || Dated: December 9, 2025 / a8 } if | / p , Si

2% UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5, crag.0086.25 28