Ronald Lee Canada v. Lewis

Filing 36

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/31/18 ORDERING the Clerk of Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD LEE CANADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 2:17-cv-0313-EFB P

J. LEWIS, et al.,

15

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.

17
18

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

19

§ 636(b)(1).
On March 1, 2018, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

20
21

§ 1915A. The court dismissed the complaint, explained the deficiencies therein and granted

22

plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. ECF No. 29.

23

The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result a recommendation that this action

24

be dismissed. The time for acting passed and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, or

25

otherwise respond to the court’s order.
On April 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. ECF No. 32. On April 18,

26
27

2018, in an abundance of caution, the court granted plaintiff another 30 day extension of time to

28

/////
1

1

file his amended complaint and directed the Clerk to re-serve plaintiff with the March 1 order.

2

ECF No. 33. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.1

3

A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

4

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

5

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. The court may dismiss an action with or

6

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.

7

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in

8

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended

9

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

10

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule

11

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

12
13

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United
States District Judge to this action.

14
15

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. L.R. 110.

16

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

17

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

18

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

19

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

20

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

21

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

22

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

23

/////

24

/////

25
26
27
28

1

He has however, requested a courtesy copy of his original complaint, stating that he
cannot file an amended complaint without it. ECF No. 34, 35. The Clerk of the Court properly
responded by informing plaintiff that he must pay for copies of documents. Moreover, plaintiff
does not need to refer to his original complaint to comply with the court’s March 1, 2018
screening order, which summarized plaintiff’s allegations and explained why they were deficient.
See ECF No. 29.
2

1

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez

2

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Dated: May 31, 2018.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3