(PC) Harris v. Campell et al, No. 1:2018cv01659 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action for Failure to Obey Court Orders and for Failure to State a Claim signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/30/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARVIN HARRIS, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:18-cv-01659-DAD-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, v. T. L. CAMPELL, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc. No. 10) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Marvin Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 21, 2019, the assigned magistrate issued a second screening order, finding 22 that plaintiff’s first amended complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 and failed to 23 link several named defendants to the claims asserted therein. (Doc. No. 8.) The order provided 24 plaintiff twenty-one (21) days to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies 25 identified in the screening order and warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would 26 result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for 27 failure to state a claim. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise 28 respond to the November 21, 2019 screening order. Accordingly, on December 30, 2019, the 1 1 magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing, within twenty-one (21) days, why this 2 action should not be dismissed due to his failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim 3 upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 9.) Alternatively, the order to show cause 4 authorized plaintiff’s filing of a second amended complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies 5 noted in the second screening order. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the December 30, 6 2019 order to show cause or to file a second amended complaint. Accordingly, on February 4, 7 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action 8 be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 9 10.) Plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations on March 2, 2020. 10 11 (Doc. No. 12.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 12 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including 13 plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 14 record and proper analysis. 15 In his objections, plaintiff states merely that in his first amended complaint he alleged “the 16 state actor must have known that something was going to happen but ignored the risk and 17 exposed the plaintiff to it anyway” . . . . There was no reason to file a amend (sic) complaint.” 18 (Doc. No. 12 at 5) (sic). Plaintiff’s objections do not meaningfully address the conclusion 19 reached in the pending findings and recommendations that he failed to state a cognizable claim in 20 his first amended complaint and failed to comply with the court’s order directing him to file a 21 second amended complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies noted in his first amended 22 complaint. The undersigned notes that the magistrate judge warned plaintiff of the consequences 23 of failing to respond to both the second screening order and the order to show cause. Doc. No. 8 24 at 7; Doc. No. 9 at 2.) Yet plaintiff did not respond in any way and now objects that he had no 25 reason to file a second amended complaint, essentially indicating that he stands on his deficient 26 first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 12 at 6.) Accordingly, dismissal is proper. See Ferdik v. 27 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 n.3 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to 28 comply with orders to amend complaint and noting that the magistrate judge’s clear directions 2 1 weighed against crediting plaintiff’s excuse that “he already had complied with the magistrate’s 2 and judge’s orders”). 3 Accordingly, 4 1. 5 6 adopted; 2. 7 8 9 10 The findings and recommendations filed on February 4, 2020 (Doc. No. 10) are This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and for failure to state a claim; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.