Morris v. Mini et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 09/18/17 DENYING 30 Motion to Stay. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the undersigned's findings and recommendations granting the defendants' motion to d ismiss 26 and the District Court's order adopting those findings and recommendations 29 . Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint or inform the court if he wishes to voluntarily dismiss this case. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

LEON E. MORRIS,

10
11
12

No. 2:12-cv-1774-TLN-CMK

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

V. MINI, et al.

13

Defendants.

14

/

15

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

16

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a stay of this case (Doc. 30).

17

In his motion, plaintiff states that he has been temporarily transferred to Salinas Valley

18

Psychiatric Program, and into the custody of the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), to work

19

on stabilizing his mental illness. He requests a stay of these proceedings until he is transferred

20

back into the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCDR).

21

A review of the court’s docket indicates that plaintiff is no longer at Salinas

22

Valley Psychiatric Program, and has been transferred to California State Prison, Los Angeles

23

County (LAC). Further review of court records1 show that plaintiff has another case pending in

24

this District, Morris v. Nangalama, et al., 2:12-cv-1202-MCE-KJN. In that case, the court has

25
1

26

Thus, this court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Chandler v. U.S.,
378 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1967).
1

1

verified that plaintiff has been transferred out of DSH custody, and back into CDCR custody. As

2

plaintiff is no longer in DSH custody, the reasons provided for the entry of a stay of these

3

proceedings are no longer valid. Plaintiff’s request will therefor be denied.

4

Further review of the docket in this action shows that defendants’ motion to

5

dismiss was granted. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint, which has not

6

been received. Given plaintiff’s mental health issues, the court will provide plaintiff additional

7

time in which to file his amended complaint. If, however, plaintiff is unable or unwilling to

8

proceed in this action, plaintiff shall so notify the court if he wishes to voluntarily dismiss this

9

case. Otherwise, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this

10

order. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint within time provided in

11

this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

12

1260-61, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also cautioned that a

13

complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with

14

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673

15

(9th Cir. 1981).

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of these proceedings (Doc. 30) is denied;

18

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the

19

undersigned’s findings and recommendations granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc.

20

26), and the District Court’s order adopting those findings and recommendation (Doc. 29); and

21
22
23
24
25

3.

Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint or inform the court if he wishes to voluntarily dismiss this case.
DATED: September 18, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
2