(PC) Ruiz v. Woodfill et al

Filing 25

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/02/20 RECOMMENDING that that this action be dismissed without prejudice.It is further recommended that plaintiffs motions for appointment of counsel, interpreter, requests to proceed in forma pauperis, and to remove the assigned magistrate judge 22 , 24 be DENIED as moot. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. 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

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:20-cv-0205 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS

D. WOODFILL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

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

18

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 3, 2020, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff be denied leave

19

to proceed in forma pauperis and be required to pay the filing fee in full or have the complaint

20

dismissed. ECF No. 4 (Findings and Recommendations). Plaintiff did not initially file any

21

objections, and the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff

22

then filed a motion for appointment of counsel that also sought reconsideration of the order

23

directing him to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 9.

24

On April 20, after plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee, the undersigned recommended that

25

the case be dismissed. ECF No. 11 (Findings and Recommendations). The District Judge then

26

provided plaintiff with an additional opportunity to file objections to the February 3, 2020

27

Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 12), and plaintiff proceeded to filed objections (ECF

28

No. 15). The District Judge affirmed the previous adoption of the February 3, 2020 Findings and
1

1

Recommendations and denied plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 17. On

2

July 13, 2020, the undersigned vacated the April 20, 2020 Findings and Recommendations (ECF

3

No. 11), and provided plaintiff with an additional thirty days to pay the requisite filing fee. ECF

4

No. 18. The order stated that plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order and pay the fee would

5

result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id.

6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that
this action be dismissed without prejudice.
It is further recommended that plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel, interpreter,
requests to proceed in forma pauperis, and to remove the assigned magistrate judge (ECF Nos.
22, 24), be DENIED as moot.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

16

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

17

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18

DATED: November 2, 2020

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2