Coleman v. Davis et al
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/9/2017 DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:15-cv-1434-EFB P
C. DAVIS, et al.,
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
Plaintiff is a county inmate 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 January 27, 2017, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. That order
informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in his complaint and directed him to file an amended
complaint within thirty days. ECF No. 5. The court also warned plaintiff that failure to comply
with the order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. On March 7,
2017, the court granted plaintiff an additional thirty days in which to file his amended complaint.
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 ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a
United States District Judge to this case.
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110.
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: May 9, 2017.
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?