Watkins v. Pope et al
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/07/11 vacating 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Within 21 days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be filed that cures the defects noted in the court's 08/08/11 order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of Practice. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ROBERT LOUIS WATKINS,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-10-0620 LKK DAD PS
v.
JAMIE POPE, et al.,
14
ORDER
Defendants.
15
/
16
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint against the California
17
Public Employees Retirement System and an individual named Jamie Pope. On August 8, 2011,
18
the court served upon plaintiff an order dismissing his amended complaint and granting plaintiff
19
thirty days to file a further amended complaint. (Doc. No. 13.) On September 19, 2011, the
20
undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed
21
without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s August 8, 2011 order. (Doc.
22
No. 14.)
23
On September 26, 2011, plaintiff filed with the court a document styled
24
“MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT; and OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED FINDINGS
25
AND RECOMMENDATIONS; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DECLARATION OF
26
PLAINTIFF; EXHIBITS.” (Doc. No. 15.) Therein, plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury
1
1
that he departed for a religious seminar and retreat on August 19, 2011, and that his father passed
2
away on September 19, 2011.1 (Doc. No. 15 at 6.) Plaintiff states that as a result of these events
3
he “did not receive actual notice of the judgment, and therefore [was] unable to comply in a
4
timely fashion.”2 (Doc. No. 15 at 6.)
5
Good cause appearing, the undersigned will vacate the September 19, 2011
6
findings and recommendations and will grant plaintiff twenty-one days to file a second amended
7
complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned however that this is the second time that the court has had to
8
vacate findings and recommendations to specially accommodate plaintiff.3 Plaintiff cannot
9
continue to rely on such accommodations in pursuing this action. In this regard, plaintiff is again
10
advised that his failure to comply with the court’s rules or with any order of the court may be
11
grounds for imposition by the court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or
12
within the inherent power of the court. See Local Rule 110.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 19, 2011 (Doc. No. 14) are
15
vacated;
16
2. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order, an amended complaint
17
shall be filed that cures the defects noted in the court’s August 8, 2011 order and complies with
18
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint
19
must bear the case number assigned to this action and must be titled “Second Amended
20
Complaint”; and
21
22
23
24
1
Plaintiff’s declaration is unsigned. In place of a signature plaintiff has typed his name.
Plaintiff is advised that all pleadings and non-evidentiary documents must be signed. See Local
Rule 131(b).
2
Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why he did not receive the court’s August 8, 2011
order before he departed for his religious seminar and retreat on August 19, 2011.
25
3
26
On June 20, 2011 the court vacated findings and recommendations stemming from
plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address as required. (Doc. No. 11.)
2
1
3. Failure to respond to this order in a timely manner may result in a
2
recommendation that this action be dismissed.
3
DATED: October 7, 2011.
4
5
6
DAD:6
ddad1\orders.prose\watkins0620.vac2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?