(PC) Saddozai v. Ceballos et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING 27 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/12/2021. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHIKEB SADDOZAI,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:20-cv-00358-NONE-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION

J. CEBALLOS, et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 27)

16
17

Plaintiff Shikeb Saddozai is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

19

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

20

On May 19, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed a screening order, finding that

21

plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 11.) The

22

magistrate judge directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 21 days. (Id. at 7-8.) On

23

May 28, 2020, and July 10, 2020, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff two extensions of time to

24

comply with the screening order because, according to plaintiff, his access to the prison law

25

library was restricted. (Doc. Nos. 13, 19.)

26

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided. Therefore, the

27

magistrate judge issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed due to

28

plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 20.) Based on plaintiff’s response, the

1

magistrate judge discharged the order to show cause and granted plaintiff a third extension of

2

time on October 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 22.) On November 18, 2020, the magistrate judge granted

3

plaintiff a fourth extension of time to comply with the screening order. (Doc. No. 24.) Although

4

more than the allowed time has passed, plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint.

5

Accordingly, on January 4, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

6

recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and

7

failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 27.) The findings and

8

recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him 14 days to file objections thereto.

9

(Id. at 2.)

10

Plaintiff filed objections on January 15, 2021. (Doc. No. 28.) Therein, plaintiff states that

11

the “Courts [sic] pleadings contained … authoritative citations … that plaintiff cannot rebut

12

without access to prison law library repeatedly denied to plaintiff by prison officials while placed

13

in solitary confinement exceeding 24 hour lockdowns.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff therefore requests an

14

extension of time, the appointment of counsel, and that the court provide him “each citation relied

15

on for argument.” (Id.) That filing did not specify for what purpose he sought the requested

16

extension of time, though presumably it was related to the filing of an amended complaint.

17

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

18

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

19

objections, the court finds the pending findings and recommendations to be supported by the

20

record and proper analysis. Despite receiving four extensions of time, plaintiff has failed to file

21

an amended complaint as directed by the magistrate judge’s screening order. In his objections,

22

plaintiff implies that he cannot properly rebut the findings and recommendations because he does

23

not have access to the case law relied upon by the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 28 at 1.)

24

However, access to case law is unnecessary for plaintiff to explain why he has failed to file an

25

amended complaint in the more than eight months since the screening order was issued in May of

26

2019. Plaintiff does not provide any such explanation.

27

In his November 12, 2020 motion for an extension of time, plaintiff stated that “due to

28

COVID-19-virus pandemic, prison facilities are on statewide lockdown.” (Doc. No. 23.) The
2

1

court is aware that state prisons have implemented “modified programs,” which limit inmate

2

movement, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. See, e.g., Anderson v. Doe, No. 1:20-cv-

3

01620-DAD-SAB, 2020 WL 7651978, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020), report and

4

recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 7383644 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2020); Coleman v. Newsom,

5

No. 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB, 2020 WL 2306570, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2020). Plaintiff,

6

though, does not contend that he has had no access to his prison’s law library over the past eight

7

months (as opposed to limited access), or that he has had no access during the preceding two

8

months since the magistrate judge granted his fourth extension of time. Nor has plaintiff

9

explained why law library access is necessary to his filing of an amended complaint in light of the

10

guidance provided to him by the screening order. Rather, it appears that plaintiff has simply

11

neglected to prosecute this action.

12

Accordingly,

13

1.

adopted in full;

14
15

2.

3.

20
21

The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for
purposes of closure and to close this case.

18
19

This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to
state a claim; and,

16
17

The findings and recommendations issued on January 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 27) are

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 12, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3