Jones v. Fox, et al.

Filing 39

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/14/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. 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

KEVIN JONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-2190-JAM-EFB P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOX, et al.,

15

Defendants.

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 May 3, 2018, the court screened plaintiff’s original and amended complaints pursuant

21

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 32. The court dismissed the complaints, explained the

22

deficiencies therein and granted plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint to cure

23

the deficiencies. Id. The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a

24

recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has

25

not filed an amended complaint.1

26
27
28

1

He has, however, filed requests for four subpoenas to discovery the “true identity” of
various defendants. See ECF Nos. 35, 36, 38. These requests are in no way responsive to the
court’s screening order.
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. L.R. 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
11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Dated: June 14, 2018.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2