Fox v. Carter
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Action be DISMISSED Becaue Plaintiff Has Failed to Plead in Compliance with Rule 8 and Has Failed to State a Cognizable Claim re 7 Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/5/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEITH ANDERSON FOX,
HONORABLE ASHTON B. CARTER,
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00223-DAD-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM
Plaintiff Keith Anderson Fox initiated this action on February 18, 2016. (ECF No.
1.) On August 25, 2016, his complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 6.) On February 16,
2017, he filed his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.) On July 14, 2017, his first
amended complaint was dismissed on the same grounds as the original complaint. (ECF
No. 8.) Plaintiff was again given leave to amend. On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
letter stating, in its entirety, as follows: “I Keith Fox would like to continue with case base
on a ruling that for me that I was [illegible] for desiability on Jun 2014 and [illegible] and
on the EEO report” (ECF No. 9.) To the extent this letter is intended as Plaintiff’s
amended pleading, it is insufficient to state a cognizable claim.
Plaintiff twice has been advised of the legal standards applicable to his claims and
the defects in his pleading. He has failed to file a complaint that meets applicable
pleading standards. In light of the foregoing, further leave to amend appears futile and
should be denied. See Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d
1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983); Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d
764, 772 (9th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed
because Plaintiff has failed to plead in compliance with Rule 8 and has failed to state a
The findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, the
parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” A party may respond
to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 5, 2017
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?