Tenerelli v. Shasta County Jail et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/16/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:14-cv-0553-WBS-EFB P
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SHASTA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On May 7, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. That order
explained the deficiencies in the complaint and granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended
complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the screening order. Plaintiff was admonished that
failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 16. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff
has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.
A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for
imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or
without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in
dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended
complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,
1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule
regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to
prosecute and failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez
v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: June 16, 2015.
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?