(PC) James v. State of California et al
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 01/16/23 REFFERING this matter back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Licea Chavez, V)
Case 2:21-cv-00713-KJM-JDP Document 27 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD EUGENE JAMES,
No. 2:21-cv-00713-KJM-JDP (PC)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Plaintiff, a county inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 13, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were
served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and
recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The magistrate judge previously
screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint, notified him that it failed to state a claim and
granted him thirty days to either file a second amended complaint or advise the court that he
wishes to stand by the first amended complaint. ECF No. 19. After plaintiff failed to respond to
that order, the magistrate judge recommended this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute,
failure to comply with court orders and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the
magistrate judge’s May 4, 2022 screening order. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff belatedly filed objections
Case 2:21-cv-00713-KJM-JDP Document 27 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
to the findings and recommendations in which he reported difficulty receiving his mail. ECF
No. 21. In light of those representations, the magistrate judge held the findings and
recommendations in abeyance and granted plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an amended
complaint. ECF No. 24. Having received no filings from the plaintiff within the thirty day
period, the magistrate judge submitted the June 13, 2022 findings and recommendations to this
court. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on December 27, 2022, two months past the
thirty day deadline set by the magistrate judge. Second Amended Complaint (SAC), ECF No. 26.
Plaintiff provided no reason for this delay. While the court accepts this late filing, the plaintiff is
cautioned that the court will not be so lenient in the future. In his amended complaint plaintiff
brings new allegations that defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights while
incarcerated because “his food is poisoned” and he is being “gas[s]ed with some sort of
chemical.” SAC at 4. Plaintiff has not cured the remainder of his claims.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. This matter will be referred back to the
assigned magistrate judge for further review and consideration of whether dismissal is appropriate
in light of the new allegations. .
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this matter is referred back to the assigned
magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
DATED: January 16, 2023.
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?