Wolfe v. Purcell et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 11/9/2010 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED; all pending motions are DENIED as moot; and the clerk to enter judgment of dismissal and close this case.CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)

(PC) Wolfe v. Purcell et al

Doc. 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Solano County Jail, the parties were properly served. It is the responsibility of the parties to keep the court apprised of their address of record at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(d), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1
Dockets.Justia.com
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WADE LEE WOLFE, Plaintiff, vs. PURCELL, et al., Defendants. /

No. CIV S-09-1946-CMK-P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate who is proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. The court issued an order to show cause on July 6, 2010, requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No response from plaintiff has been received.1 ///

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 this case.

The court outlined plaintiff's allegations in its prior order and will not repeat them here. The court found plaintiff's third amended complaint was insufficient as to his claims against defendant Purcell, was vague and conclusory, failed to allege a sufficient link between the named defendant and the alleged constitutional violations, and continued to violate Rule 8's requirement of a short and plain statement of the claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the order to show cause may result in the dismissal of this action for the reasons outlined as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. Plaintiff has not responded to the court's order and it is appropriate to dismiss this action for the following reasons: lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. 3. This action is dismissed; All pending motions are denied as moot; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal and close

DATED: November 9, 2010 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2