(PC) Kennedy v. Fresno County Sheriff, et al., No. 1:2020cv00536 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Case, Without Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With a Court Order and Prosecute the Case signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/2/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Kennedy v. Fresno County Sheriff, et al. Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORBIN JAMES KENNEDY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-00536-DAD-EPG v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al. (Doc. No. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Corbin James Kennedy is a former1 pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se and in 17 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. On August 5, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 21 22 complaint, finding the pending action failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, and granting 23 plaintiff leave to amend within thirty days after service of the order or to notify the court he 24 wishes to stand on his complaint. (Doc. No. 7.) On August 14, 2020, plaintiff filed a prisoner 25 1 26 27 28 Plaintiff was apparently a pre-trial detainee in Fresno County Jail at the time he filed his complaint in this action. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 1, 2021, the court performed searches using plaintiff’s last name using the Fresno County Sheriff’s inmate locator website, which yielded no records. See Fresno County Jail Inmate Search, https://www.fresnosheriff.org/units/records/inmate-search.html. Accordingly, this court takes judicial notice of the fact the petitioner is no longer being detained. Fed. R. Evid. 201. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 civil rights complaint form, but it did not include an amended complaint and instead merely stated 2 “the additional information you are requesting requires an extension of time to complete.” (Doc. 3 No. 10 at 2.) On August 17, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge construed the document filed by 4 plaintiff as a request for an extension of time to respond to the screening order and granted 5 plaintiff an additional forty-five (45) days to respond. (Doc. No. 11.) On September 14, 2020, 6 plaintiff filed a second request for an extension of time to respond to the court’s screening order. 7 (Doc. No. 12.) On September 17, 2020, the assigned magistrate again granted plaintiff an 8 additional forty-five (45) days to respond to the screening order. (Doc. No. 13.) 9 On January 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 10 recommending that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, because of plaintiff’s failure to 11 comply with a court order and to prosecute this case along with notice that any objections thereto 12 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Doc. No. 15 at 3.) These 13 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail directed to his address of record 14 but were returned to the court as undeliverable on January 15, 2021. Plaintiff has not filed an 15 amended complaint or a response to the screening order nor has plaintiff updated his address of 16 record, and the time to do so has since passed. 17 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 18 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 19 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 20 Accordingly, 21 1. 22 23 adopted in full; 2. 24 25 26 27 The findings and recommendations issued on January 8, 2021, (Doc. No. 15), are This case is dismissed, without prejudice, because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and to prosecute this case; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
