Lee v. California Correctional Center et al

Filing 9

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 OSCAR CLAYBORNE LEE, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-0024-JAM-EFB P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On January 31, 2018, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, explained the deficiencies therein and 22 granted plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. ECF 23 No. 6. The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result a recommendation that this 24 action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to prosecute. The time for acting has 25 passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s 26 order.1 27 28 1 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 1 1 A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 2 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 3 inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or 4 without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. 5 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in 6 dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended 7 complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 8 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 9 regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 10 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without 11 prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. 12 Local Rule 110; 28 U.S.C. 1915A. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 18 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 19 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 20 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 21 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 Dated: March 8, 2018. 23 24 25 26 27 28 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 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?