(PC) James v. State of California et al

Filing 27

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)

Download PDF
Case 2:21-cv-00713-KJM-JDP Document 27 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:21-cv-00713-KJM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 13, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The magistrate judge previously 23 screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint, notified him that it failed to state a claim and 24 granted him thirty days to either file a second amended complaint or advise the court that he 25 wishes to stand by the first amended complaint. ECF No. 19. After plaintiff failed to respond to 26 that order, the magistrate judge recommended this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, 27 failure to comply with court orders and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the 28 magistrate judge’s May 4, 2022 screening order. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff belatedly filed objections 1 Case 2:21-cv-00713-KJM-JDP Document 27 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2 1 to the findings and recommendations in which he reported difficulty receiving his mail. ECF 2 No. 21. In light of those representations, the magistrate judge held the findings and 3 recommendations in abeyance and granted plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an amended 4 complaint. ECF No. 24. Having received no filings from the plaintiff within the thirty day 5 period, the magistrate judge submitted the June 13, 2022 findings and recommendations to this 6 court. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on December 27, 2022, two months past the 7 thirty day deadline set by the magistrate judge. Second Amended Complaint (SAC), ECF No. 26. 8 Plaintiff provided no reason for this delay. While the court accepts this late filing, the plaintiff is 9 cautioned that the court will not be so lenient in the future. In his amended complaint plaintiff 10 brings new allegations that defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights while 11 incarcerated because “his food is poisoned” and he is being “gas[s]ed with some sort of 12 chemical[].” SAC at 4. Plaintiff has not cured the remainder of his claims. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 14 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. This matter will be referred back to the 15 assigned magistrate judge for further review and consideration of whether dismissal is appropriate 16 in light of the new allegations. . 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this matter is referred back to the assigned 18 magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 19 DATED: January 16, 2023. 20 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?