Grimes v. Grossjan

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 07/12/18 RECOMMENDING that this case be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. 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

JOSEPH GRIMES,

12

No. 2:17-cv-2394 MCE DB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. GROSSJAN,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on November 14, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)

19

Also on November 14, 2017, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

20

(ECF No. 2.) However, plaintiff failed to sign the application. In an order filed November 17,

21

2017, the court ordered plaintiff to file a signed application or pay the $400 filing fee within thirty

22

days. Plaintiff was provided a new copy of the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a

23

Prisoner. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to comply with the November 17 order, this court

24

would recommend dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 6.)

25

By January 8, 2018, plaintiff had not filed a completed IFP application or the filing fee.

26

Accordingly, the court recommended this case be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with

27

court orders. (ECF No. 8.) On January 26, 2018, plaintiff filed objections to that

28

recommendation in which he explained that he had recently moved. (ECF No. 9.) In an order
1

1

filed February 5, 2018, the court withdrew the recommendation that this action be dismissed and

2

ordered plaintiff to file a completed and signed IFP application within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.)

3

That order was served on plaintiff at his new address.

4

After thirty days had passed, and plaintiff had not filed the Application to Proceed in

5

Forma Pauperis or otherwise responded to the court’s February 5, 2018 order, on April 3, 2018,

6

the court again recommended this action be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to

7

prosecute and comply with court orders. (ECF No. 11.) The next day, on April 4, 2018, plaintiff

8

filed a copy of his certified trust account statement. However, again, he did not provide a copy of

9

the signed IFP application. On May 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to

10

file his application. (ECF No. 14.) In an order filed May 31, 2018, the court granted plaintiff’s

11

motion for an extension of time. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff was advised that he must either file a

12

signed IFP application or pay the filing fee within thirty days if we wishes to proceed with this

13

action. Those thirty days have passed and plaintiff has, again, failed to file a signed IFP

14

application or otherwise respond to the court’s most recent order.
The court is unable to screen plaintiff’s complaint or otherwise allow this case to proceed

15
16

until plaintiff has either paid the filing fee or submit a signed IFP application. Plaintiff has had

17

numerous opportunities to pay the fee or file the signed application and he has failed to do so.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed for

19

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.

20

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

21

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

22

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

23

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

24

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
2

1

time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

2

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Dated: July 12, 2018

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/grim2394.fr3

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3