Walker v. Kernan et al
Filing
24
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/1/2019 RECOMMENING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
G. DANIEL WALKER,
10
No. 2:17-cv-1764 KJM DB P
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
15
16
U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated August 8, 2019, plaintiff’s second amended complaint was
17
screened. (ECF No. 23.) The court found plaintiff had stated potentially cognizable retaliation
18
claim against defendants Green, Kumar, Muniz, and Martella. The court also found that the
19
complaint did not contain any other cognizable claims. Plaintiff was given the option to proceed
20
immediately on his retaliation claims or to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff was directed to complete and return a form indicating his decision within
21
22
fourteen days. He was warned that failure to comply with the court’s order would result in a
23
recommendation that this action be dismissed. Those fourteen days have passed, and plaintiff has
24
not returned the form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action, updated his address, 1
25
1
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s most recent notice of change of address indicated that he was housed at California
Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. (ECF No. 18.) However, the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s inmate locator website: https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/
indicates that plaintiff is presently incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran. Local Rule
183(b) requires that a person appearing in propia persona promptly inform the court of any
address change.
1
1
or otherwise responded to the court’s order. In light of plaintiff’s failure to comply with court
2
orders and the local rules, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.
3
4
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed
without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
5
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
6
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
7
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
8
with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
9
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that
10
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
11
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
12
13
Dated: October 1, 2019
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DLB:12
DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner.Civil.Rights/walk1764.f&r.dism
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?