(PC) Goods v. Wasco State Prison

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations, denying Motion to Amend the Complaint, and dismissing action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the Administrative Remedies signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/7/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES FRANCIS GOODS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. WASCO STATE PRISON, Defendant. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00661-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, AND DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES [ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13] Plaintiff Charles Francis Goods is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On May 28, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one (21) days why 21 the action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not 22 respond to the Court’s order. Therefore, on July 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 23 Recommendations recommending that the action be dismissed. 24 Then, on July 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 11.) On 25 July 18, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion 26 to amend and granted Plaintiff an additional fourteen days to file objections to the Findings and 27 Recommendations. More than fourteen days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed objections. 28 However, on August 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed on the claim against Wasco State 1 1 Prison. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff’s August 5, 2019, motion is not responsive to either of the Findings 2 and Recommendations and does not address whether he has exhausted the administrative remedies as 3 set forth in the Court’s May 28, 2019, order to show cause. Plaintiff’s motion therefore does not 4 provide any basis for relief or call into question the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 6 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 7 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 2, 2019 (Doc. No. 10) and July 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 12), are adopted in full; 10 11 2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 11) is denied; 12 3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed (Doc. No. 13) is denied; and 13 4. The instant action is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the 14 administrative remedies. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: October 7, 2019 18 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?