(PC) Knox v. Biter, No. 1:2018cv00761 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign a District Judge to This Action; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Action be DISMISSED for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/17/2018. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE H. KNOX, III., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. M. BITER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00761-SAB (PC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 8] Plaintiff Willie H. Knox III is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 On June 7, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that Plaintiff failed to state a 22 cognizable claim, and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. Over thirty days 23 have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s 24 order. Accordingly, the instant action must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for 25 relief for the reasons stated in the Court’s June 7, 2018, screening order. 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 1 The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 2 impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 3 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply 4 with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 5 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 6 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 7 sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 8 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, 9 and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted). 10 The Court’s June 7, 2018, screening order specifically noted that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to file an amended 11 complaint in compliance with this order, the Court will recommendation that this action be dismissed. 12 (ECF No. 8.) Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the order, this action 13 should be dismissed. This action, which has been pending June 2018, can proceed no further without 14 Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot simply remain 15 idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. 16 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. 18 The instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 19 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this action; and 20 3. The Office of the Clerk is directed to randomly assign this action to a District 21 Judge. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 22 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 24 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 25 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 26 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 2 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 6 July 17, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.