Deshavier v. Jordan et al

Filing 62

ORDER ADOPTING 55 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing for Failure to Obey Court Orders, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/22/19. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AKHEEM DESHAVIER WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:17-cv-00816-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK JORDAN; LARRY LEEDS,
JONATHAN RIVERA; and STEVEN
SITTER,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS
(Doc. No. 59)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Akheem Deshavier Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

20

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On July 18, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

22

recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to obey the

23

court’s previously issued orders (Doc. Nos. 31, 41) to file a single, complete amended complaint

24

instead of filing multiple, piecemeal amendments that obstruct the court’s ability to screen his

25

complaint. (Doc. No. 55.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and

26

contained notice that any objections thereto must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service

27

of the order. (Id. at 8.) After plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file his objections

28

(Doc. No. 57), he timely filed objections on August 14, 2019. (Doc. No. 58.)
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

3

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by

4

proper analysis.

5

In his objections, plaintiff states that he was aware that the court had instructed him not to

6

make piecemeal filings but misunderstood the meaning of that directive. (Doc. No. 58.) Plaintiff

7

further asserts that the court does not want to assist him and never responded to his complaint.

8

(Id.) However, the magistrate judge’s orders directing plaintiff to file a single amended

9

complaint contained very clear instructions to plaintiff to file a single amended complaint and

10

explicitly explained why his repeated filings were impeding the court’s ability to screen his

11

complaint. (Doc. Nos. 31, 41.) The remainder of plaintiff’s lengthy objections do not address the

12

merits of the findings and recommendations. Instead, those objections further contravene the

13

court’s orders by speculating opaquely about the occurrence of harmful physical and mental

14

phenomena and include numerous exhibits of purported evidence and allegations that appear

15

designed to supplement plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. No. 58, Exs. 1–5A.)

16

Accordingly,

17

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 55) are adopted

18
19

in full;
2. This case is dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders;

20
21
22
23

and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 22, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2