O'Neill v. El Dorado County Sheriff's et al.

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/29/2017 ORDERING this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NEAL O’NEILL,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-cv-0069-EFB P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFFS, et
al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

22

On March 23, 2017, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint stated a potentially

23

cognizable First Amendment access to the courts claim against defendant Isaccson. ECF No. 7.

24

That order also dismissed all other claims with leave to amend. Plaintiff was directed to return

25

the documents necessary to effect service of process on defendant Isaccson or to file an amended

26

complaint attempting to cure the defects listed therein within thirty days. Id. That order warned

27

plaintiff that failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal of this case. The time for

28

acting passed and plaintiff failed to return the documents necessary to effect service of process on
1

1

defendant, failed to file an amended complaint, and did not otherwise respond to the court’s

2

order. Accordingly, the court dismissed this action without prejudice. ECF No. 10.

3

On the same day as the dismissal, the Clerk docketed a timely request from plaintiff for an

4

extension of time. ECF No. 12. Accordingly, on June 6, 2017, the court vacated the order of

5

dismissal and directed the Clerk to reopen the case. ECF No. 14. The court also granted plaintiff

6

another 60 days within which to file an amended complaint or return the documents necessary to

7

effect service of process on defendant Isaacson. The court warned plaintiff that failure to so

8

comply could result in another order of dismissal. Once again, the time for acting has passed and

9

plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s order.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice.

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110.

12

Dated: August 29, 2017.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2