Scott v. CDCR

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 09/15/17 DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ED’JUAN SCOTT, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-0578 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CDCR, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff appears to be a mentally ill inmate who claims he was 19 ordered to be treated with electro-shock therapy in 2011 and continues to be subjected to electro- 20 shock therapy “remotely.” Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. 21 By order filed March 1, 2017, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to 22 file an amended complaint was granted. On April 11, 2017, plaintiff was given an additional 23 thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. In a document filed April 24, 2017, plaintiff 24 sought an extension of time. 25 On May 23, 2017, the court ordered the Office of the Attorney General to address 26 plaintiff’s allegations concerning his mental health care. On June 6, the Attorney General’s 27 Office filed a response to the court’s May 23 order. Therein, the state explains: (1) the Contra 28 Costa County Superior Court has no record of ordering plaintiff to undergo electro-shock therapy; 1 1 (2) plaintiff has not undergone electro-shock therapy during his incarceration at CSP-Sacramento; 2 (3) plaintiff is not currently undergoing electro-shock therapy; and (4) electro-shock therapy is 3 not administered at CSP-Sacramento. On June 16, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, advising 4 5 plaintiff that he must attempt to state any claims he may have about the past administration of 6 electro-shock therapy. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Finally, on August 2, 2017, 7 the court gave plaintiff one, final opportunity to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 8 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s August 2, 2017 9 order. 10 Plaintiff was advised in the August 2 order that if he failed to file a timely amended 11 complaint, this case would be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this 12 action is dismissed without prejudice. See E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 13 Dated: September 15, 2017 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/ 22 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?