Mitchell v. Beard et al

Filing 17

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending dismissal of action for failure to comply with court order and failure to state a cognizable claim for relief signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/13/2017. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&R's due by 12/7/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MITCHELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:17 -cv-01032-DAD-SAB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR
RELIEF

v.
CDCR SECRETARY JEFFERY BEARD, et
al.,

15
Defendants.

(ECF No. 11)

16
17

Plaintiff Robert Mitchell (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in

18 forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 12, 2017 in the
19 Central District of California. On August 3, 3017, the matter was transferred to the Eastern
20 District of California.
21

On August 23, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim

22 under section 1983 and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 28
23 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the
24 order, and on October 2, 2017, the Court overruled Plaintiff’s objections and granted Plaintiff an
25 additional thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.)

More than thirty days

26 have since passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s
27 order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may
28 be granted.

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), it is

1

1 HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT the instant action be dismissed, with prejudice, based on
2 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a claim upon which relief may
3 be granted.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

4

5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one
6 (21) days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file
7 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
8 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections
9 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,
10 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir.
11 1991)).
12
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14

Dated:

November 13, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2