(PC) Curley v. Clark et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Complaint With Leave to Amend, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/16/2021. (Amended Complaint due within THIRTY DAYS.)(Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:20-cv-00453-NONE-JLT (PC)

KEVIN CURLEY,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff,
v.

(Doc. Nos. 1, 12)
CHIEF DEPUTY WARDEN CLARK, et
al.,

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

19

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

20

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

21

On November 2, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order explaining why the

22

claims in plaintiff’s original complaint were deficient, and directing plaintiff to either file an

23

amended complaint, seek voluntary dismissal, or elect to stand on the complaint as originally

24

plead. (Doc. No. 8.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed two documents (Doc. Nos. 9, 10), which the

25

magistrate judge construed as requests to stand on his original complaint (see Doc. No. 12 at 1).

26

On December 4, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, recommending

27

that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed objections

28

thereto. (Doc. No. 13.) In his objections, plaintiff does not object to the magistrate judge’s
1

1

conclusions regarding the original complaint, but appears to be requesting leave to amend to

2

specify the identity of certain individuals previously mentioned only in generic terms in the

3

original complaint. (Id.) The undersigned finds this request to be consistent with the existing

4

instructions provided by the magistrate judge in the underlying screening order (Doc. No. 8), and

5

the findings and recommendations, which already recommend granting plaintiff leave to amend.

6

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

7

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the court orders as

8

follows:

9

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 4, 2020 (Doc. No. 12), are adopted

10
11

in full;
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend being

12
13

granted; and
3. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within thirty days from the date of this

14
15
16
17

order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 16, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2