Lee v. California Correctional Center et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 03/08/18 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OSCAR CLAYBORNE LEE,
No. 2:17-cv-0024-JAM-EFB P
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CENTER, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner 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 31, 2018, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, explained the deficiencies therein and
granted plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. ECF
No. 6. The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result a recommendation that this
action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to prosecute. The time for acting has
passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff
was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current
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 RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal.
Local Rule 110; 28 U.S.C. 1915A.
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: March 8, 2018.
address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of
the party is fully effective.
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?