(PS) Manriquez et al v. Goodrum et al, No. 2:2008cv00880 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/16/12 recommending that this action be dismissed 1 Case Transferred In - District Transfer. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judgeassigned to the case. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
(PS) Manriquez et al v. Goodrum et al Doc. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSE GONZALEZ MANRIQUEZ, et al., No. 2:08-cv-880-KJM-EFB PS 11 Plaintiffs, 12 vs. 13 TODD GOODRUM, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 16 / This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 17 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dckt. No. 37. On October 26, 2012, the undersigned issued an order granting 18 plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney for plaintiffs Jose Gonzalez Manriquez, 19 Aldo Bacenas, Javier Vallejo Renteria, Amador Martinez Gonzalez, Fernando Cabrera Guzman, 20 Eliazarb Rojas Blancas, Juan Carrillo, Salvador Renteria, and Eddy Saul Ramos, and directing 21 plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dckt. 22 No. 60 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). The order provided that “[a]lthough defendants’ default 23 was entered over a year and a half ago, plaintiffs still have not moved for default judgment 24 against defendants, nor have they indicated how they intend to proceed with this action.” Id. at 25 5. The order also noted that plaintiffs “have failed to communicate with their counsel for the 26 past three and a half years, despite numerous attempts by counsel to contact them.” Id. at 5-6. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The order admonished plaintiffs that a failure to respond to the order to show cause “may result 2 in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to 3 comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules.” Id. at 6. 4 The deadline has passed and plaintiffs have not responded to the order to show cause.1 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, and that the 6 Clerk be directed to close this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 12 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 13 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: November 16, 2012. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Although it appears from the file that copies of the findings and recommendations were returned as undeliverable to several of the plaintiffs, all plaintiffs were served at their last known addresses. It is each plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.