Leal v. Community Hospital of Fresno, No. 1:2019cv01266 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING ACTION With Prejudice signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/27/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 CASE NO. 1:19-cv-01266-AWI-SKO JOSE LEAL, v. 9 10 11 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF FRESNO, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Doc. No. 7) 12 13 14 On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Leal, a prisoner in the custody of Wasco State Prison 15 and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint against Defendant Community Hospital of 16 Fresno, in which he seeks to proceed on a claim based on the removal of his infant daughter from 17 his custody. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 18 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was granted on September 16, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 2 & 3.) 19 On September 24, 2019, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed 20 to state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days leave to file an amended 21 complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. No. 4.) Although more 22 than the allowed time passed, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to 23 the court’s screening order. 24 On October 23, 2019, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within twenty- 25 one days why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s screening 26 order and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiff was warned in both the screening order 27 and the OSC that the failure to comply with the court’s order would result in a recommendation to 28 1 the presiding district judge of the dismissal of this action. (Id. See also Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff failed 2 to file a response to the OSC. 3 On November 22, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommended 4 that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s order to show cause, 5 for failure to prosecute, and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was granted twenty6 one (21) days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendation. (Id.) No objections 7 have been filed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the findings 10 and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 ORDER 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendation dated November 22, 2019 (Doc. No. 7), are 14 ADOPTED IN FULL; 15 2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 16 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: December 27, 2019 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.