Godoy v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 20

AMENDED FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that this Case be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Court Order re 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/9/19. Objections, If Any, Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK GODOY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

16

1:17-cv-00809-DAD-GSA-PC
AMENDED FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING
THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER1
(ECF No. 14.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

17
18
19

Frank Godoy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed the

21

Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On June 27, 2018, the court dismissed the

22

Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) On July 13, 2018,

23

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14.)

24
25

The findings and recommendations were amended to reflect that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with a court order, not on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. When a district court dismisses an
action because the plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint after being given leave to do so and has not notified
the court of his intention not to file an amended complaint, a federal court may deem the dismissal to be for failure
to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2017)
1

26
27
28

1

1

On April 30, 2019, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint, with leave to file

2

a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 17.) The thirty-day deadline has

3

now expired and Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint or otherwise responded to

4

the court’s order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which

5

relief may be granted. The court should dismiss this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply

6

with the court’s order.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

8

1.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this case be
DISMISSED, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order; and

9
10

2.

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)).

The clerk be directed to close this case.

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 9, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2