-DAD (PS) Watkins v. Pope et al, No. 2:2010cv00620 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/07/11 vacating 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Within 21 days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be filed that cures the defects noted in the court's 08/08/11 order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of Practice. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
-DAD (PS) Watkins v. Pope et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT LOUIS WATKINS, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0620 LKK DAD PS v. JAMIE POPE, et al., 14 ORDER Defendants. 15 / 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint against the California 17 Public Employees Retirement System and an individual named Jamie Pope. On August 8, 2011, 18 the court served upon plaintiff an order dismissing his amended complaint and granting plaintiff 19 thirty days to file a further amended complaint. (Doc. No. 13.) On September 19, 2011, the 20 undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed 21 without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s August 8, 2011 order. (Doc. 22 No. 14.) 23 On September 26, 2011, plaintiff filed with the court a document styled 24 “MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT; and OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED FINDINGS 25 AND RECOMMENDATIONS; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DECLARATION OF 26 PLAINTIFF; EXHIBITS.” (Doc. No. 15.) Therein, plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 that he departed for a religious seminar and retreat on August 19, 2011, and that his father passed 2 away on September 19, 2011.1 (Doc. No. 15 at 6.) Plaintiff states that as a result of these events 3 he “did not receive actual notice of the judgment, and therefore [was] unable to comply in a 4 timely fashion.”2 (Doc. No. 15 at 6.) 5 Good cause appearing, the undersigned will vacate the September 19, 2011 6 findings and recommendations and will grant plaintiff twenty-one days to file a second amended 7 complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned however that this is the second time that the court has had to 8 vacate findings and recommendations to specially accommodate plaintiff.3 Plaintiff cannot 9 continue to rely on such accommodations in pursuing this action. In this regard, plaintiff is again 10 advised that his failure to comply with the court’s rules or with any order of the court may be 11 grounds for imposition by the court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or 12 within the inherent power of the court. See Local Rule 110. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 19, 2011 (Doc. No. 14) are 15 vacated; 16 2. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order, an amended complaint 17 shall be filed that cures the defects noted in the court’s August 8, 2011 order and complies with 18 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint 19 must bear the case number assigned to this action and must be titled “Second Amended 20 Complaint”; and 21 22 23 24 1 Plaintiff’s declaration is unsigned. In place of a signature plaintiff has typed his name. Plaintiff is advised that all pleadings and non-evidentiary documents must be signed. See Local Rule 131(b). 2 Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why he did not receive the court’s August 8, 2011 order before he departed for his religious seminar and retreat on August 19, 2011. 25 3 26 On June 20, 2011 the court vacated findings and recommendations stemming from plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address as required. (Doc. No. 11.) 2 1 3. Failure to respond to this order in a timely manner may result in a 2 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 3 DATED: October 7, 2011. 4 5 6 DAD:6 ddad1\orders.prose\watkins0620.vac2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.