(PC) Knutson v. California Department of Corrections, No. 2:2010cv01867 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/18/10 ORDERING that plaintiffs 7 Motion for Declaration of Rights is denied; and Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Knutson v. California Department of Corrections Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONALD KNUTSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:10-cv-1867 KJN P vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ORDER and 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 By order filed July 27, 2010, plaintiff was directed to file an in forma pauperis 17 affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fee within thirty days, and was cautioned that failure to do 18 so may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Clerk of 19 Court sent plaintiff a new Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with service of the court’s 20 order. (Id.) 21 The thirty-day deadline has expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 22 order, although plaintiff has filed a consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge (Dkt. No. 23 5), and two barely-legible matters, a “Notice of Removal” (Dkt. No. 6), and a “Motion for 24 Declaration of Rights” (Dkt. No. 7.) (Cursory review of the complaint demonstrates that it, too, 25 presents legibility problems.) Thus, despite plaintiff’s continuing awareness of this action, he 26 has not responded to the court’s order requiring that he either file an in forma pauperis affidavit Dockets.Justia.com 1 or pay the filing fee. The court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Declaration of Rights” (Dkt. No. 7) is denied; and 4 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 5 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 6 prejudice. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 11 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 13 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: October 18, 2010 15 16 17 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 knut1867.fifp
]]>
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.
