Hanson v. Mimms et al

Filing 8

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Case be Dismissed for Failure to Obey Court Orders and Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/24/2017. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 11/13/2017.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARYL LEON HANSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
MARGARET MIMMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:17-cv-00576-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY
COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(ECF Nos. 3, 5.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

16
17
18

I.

Daryl Leon Hanson (“Plaintiff”) is a Fresno County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and

19
20

BACKGROUND

in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

On April 26, 2017 and August 3, 2017, the court issued orders requiring Plaintiff to

22

complete the court’s form indicating whether he consents to, or declines, Magistrate Judge

23

jurisdiction and return the form to the court within thirty days. (ECF Nos. 3, 5.) The thirty-day

24

time periods expired and Plaintiff did not return the court’s consent/decline form or otherwise

25

respond to the court’s orders.1

26
27
28

1

The United States Postal Service returned the August 3, 2017, order on September 28, 2017, as undeliverable.
A notation on the envelope indicates that Plaintiff is not in custody. However, Plaintiff has not notified the court
of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party=s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule
182(f).
1

1

On September 22, 2017, the court issued an order to show cause requiring Plaintiff to

2

file a written response within fourteen days of the date of service of the order, showing cause

3

why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders. (ECF No. 6.)

4

Plaintiff was forewarned in the court’s order that his “[f]ailure to respond to this order may

5

result in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice.” (Id. at 3.) The fourteen-day deadline

6

has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause.2

7

II.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

8

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

9

without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s orders of April 26, 2017,

10

August 3, 2017, and September 22, 2017, and failure to prosecute this action.

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

12

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

13

(14) days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

14

written objections with the court.

15

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

16

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

17

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

18

(9th Cir. 1991)).

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

21

October 24, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

The United States Postal Service returned the order to show cause on October 3, 2017, as undeliverable,
indicating that Plaintiff is not in custody. Local Rule 182(f).
2