Langston v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
Filing
6
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/21/2016 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign a District Judge to this action; AND RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with this court's orders. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WALTER SHANE LANGSTON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:16-cv-2255 DB P
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
16
Defendant.
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
19
1983. On September 28, 2016, the court gave plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint,
20
either in this proceeding or in a new proceeding in the Fresno Division of this court, and an
21
application to proceed in forma pauperis or the filing fee. (ECF No. 3.) On October 28, 2016,
22
plaintiff moved for an extension of time to “file [a] grievance with prison administration.” (ECF
23
No. 4.) Plaintiff was advised that the court cannot grant an extension of time to file a grievance
24
with the prison. See Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff was further
25
advised that he must exhaust his administrative remedies through the grievance and appeal
26
procedures before he may seek relief in this court. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199
27
(9th Cir. 2002).
28
////
1
The court liberally construed plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time as also seeking an
1
2
extension of the deadlines set out in the court’s September 28, 2016 order. Accordingly, on
3
November 9, 2016, the court ordered that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 4),
4
construed as an extension of deadlines set by this court, be granted. (ECF No. 5.) Thus, plaintiff
5
was ordered to, within thirty days of the November 9, 2016 order, file an amended complaint, as
6
explained in the September 28 order, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing
7
fee. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to meet this deadline would result in a
8
recommendation that his case be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.)
9
More than thirty days have now passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint,
10
as explained in the September 28 order, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
11
filing fee. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an
12
action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260
13
(9th Cir. 1992); see also Local Rule 110.
14
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a
District Judge to this action; and
16
17
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with this court’s orders.
18
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
19
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
20
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
21
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
22
and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen
23
days after service of the objections.
24
////
25
////
26
////
27
////
28
////
2
1
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the
2
right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: December 21, 2016
4
5
6
7
TIM-DLB:10
DB / ORDERS / ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS / lang2255.dismiss
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?