Storman v. Kaiser
Filing
18
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/16/15 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL DAVID STORMAN,
12
No. 2:14-cv-2538 GEB DAD PS
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
KAISER,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff Michael Storman is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to
17
18
the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On April 29, 2015, the undersigned issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and
19
20
granting him leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days of that order. (Dkt.
21
No. 3.) On May 11, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a sixty-day extension of time to file his
22
amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 7.) On June 5, 2015, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion
23
for a sixty-day extension of time to comply with the court’s order. (Dkt. No. 9.)
On September 23, 2015, after the sixty-day period had expired and plaintiff still had not
24
25
filed an amended complaint, the undersigned issued an order to show cause within fourteen days
26
as to why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s lack of prosecution and failure to
27
comply with the court’s orders. (Dkt. No. 16.)
28
/////
1
1
On September 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a document stating that he “never understood . . .
2
how to write an amended complaint,” and that he “would have filed another complaint a long
3
time ago, if [he] could.” (Dkt. No. 17 at 1.) Therein, plaintiff also stated that he is unable to
4
obtain legal representation and asked the court to “rule in his favor with some appropriate
5
monetary damages granted to [plaintiff].” (Id.)
6
The court understands the difficulties parties face in proceeding pro se. Nonetheless,
7
federal district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil
8
cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Moreover, this action
9
cannot proceed in the absence of a viable amended complaint.
10
11
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
prejudice. See Local Rule 110; FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
13
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
14
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
15
with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate
16
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within
17
the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst,
18
951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
19
Dated: October 16, 2015
20
21
22
DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\storman2538.fta.f&rs.docx
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?