(PC) Taylor v. Cate et al, No. 1:2011cv01957 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal Of Action, With Prejudice, For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted And For Failure To Prosecute, Objections Due Within 21 Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/18/2012. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 8/10/2012.(Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Taylor v. Cate et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 TRACY TAYLOR, CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01957-LJO-GBC (PC) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED AND FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Defendants. 14 / OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS 15 16 On November 28, 2011, Plaintiff Tracy Taylor (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro 17 se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging failure 18 to provide orthopedic boots from the vendor of Plaintiff’s choice and denial of orthotics and 19 orthopedic slippers on the grounds that medical staff has not established medical necessity. Compl. 20 at 5-6, 8, Doc. 1. On May 15, 2012, the undersigned dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to 21 state a claim upon which relief may be granted and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 22 within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e). Doc. 11. To date, Plaintiff has not complied 23 with the Court’s order or requested an extension of time. 24 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 25 required to consider several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 26 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 27 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 28 sanctions.’” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com 1 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not 2 conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 3 Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). 4 In this instance, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s orders. 5 As a result, there is no pleading on file that sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted 6 under § 1983. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e), the undersigned HEREBY 7 RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state 8 any claims upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 and for failure to prosecute. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 11 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 12 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 15 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: 7j8cce July 18, 2012 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of 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.