(PC)Saiz v. Putnam et al, No. 1:2020cv01231 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Case, Without Prejudice, Because of Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With a Court Order and to Prosecute This Case signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/20/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Saiz v. Putnam et al Doc. 26 Case 1:20-cv-01231-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN SAIZ, 12 No. 1:20-cv-01231-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SENIOR DEP. PUTNAM, et al. (Doc. No. 25) 15 Defendants. 16 At the time this case was filed, plaintiff Martin Luiz Saiz was a state inmate or pretrial 17 18 detainee1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 26, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint, 21 22 concluding that plaintiff stated “cognizable claims against Defendants Putnam and Schrieber for 23 (1) violating his due process rights with respect to housing him in administrative segregation and 24 (2) violating his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for his protected speech” but 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff alleges the underlying actions occurred in Kings County Jail, which is where many pretrial detainees are held. However, plaintiff provided the court both an inmate number at the Kings County Jail and a CDCR inmate number, indicating that he was a sentenced inmate being held at the Kings County Jail. The Court therefore presumes that plaintiff had been convicted. Regardless, the distinction is not material here. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01231-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 3 1 that plaintiff “faile[ed] to state any other claims.” (Doc. No. 6 at 9–10.) Plaintiff elected to 2 proceed on only those claims that the magistrate judge found cognizable in the screening order. 3 (Doc. No. 7). Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations consistent 4 with the screening order, and, after no objections were filed, this Court adopted the findings and 5 recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 11, 14.) 6 After defendants answered the complaint, the magistrate judge ordered the parties to file 7 scheduling and discovery statements. (Doc. No. 19.) The statements were to identify information 8 helpful for discovery and the scheduling of the case, such as the parties’ claims and/or defenses, 9 the description and location of documents that may be used at trial, and the names and phone 10 numbers of potential witnesses. (Id.) On March 26, 2021, Defendants filed their scheduling and 11 discovery statement. (Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff did not file his statement by the deadline or request 12 an extension of time to do so. 13 Accordingly, on April 20, 2021, the magistrate judge sua sponte ordered that plaintiff be 14 granted 21 additional days to file his required statement. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff was warned 15 that, if he again failed to file the required statement by the deadline, “the Court may issue findings 16 and recommendations to the assigned district judge, recommending that this action be dismissed, 17 without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.” (Id. at 1). 18 After the 21-day period for plaintiff to file his statement expired without plaintiff filing a 19 statement or any request for extension of time to file one, the magistrate judge issued findings and 20 recommendations on June 1, 2021, recommending that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, 21 due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute this case along with 22 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of 23 service. (Doc. No. 25 at 3–5.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has 24 since expired. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 ///// 2 Case 1:20-cv-01231-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 07/20/21 Page 3 of 3 1 Accordingly, 2 1. 3 4 adopted in full; 2. 5 6 9 10 This case is dismissed, without prejudice, because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and to prosecute this case; and 3. 7 8 The findings and recommendations issued on June 1, 2021, (Doc. No. 25), are The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for purposes of closure and to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2021 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.
