(PC) Saragoza v. John Doe No. 1, et al., No. 1:2023cv00355 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to Obey a Court Order, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/12/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENITO JOSE SARAGOZA, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE NO. 1, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:23-cv-00355 JLT BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER (Doc. 16) 16 17 Benito Jose Saragoza is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 1, 10.) This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 28, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and directed 21 Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or TOnotify the Court of his willingness to 22 proceed on the cognizable claims identified by the Court. (Doc. 13.) The order was served on 23 Plaintiff at his then-current address of record, but was returned on July 12, 2023, as 24 “Undeliverable, Inmate Discharged/Inactive.” Following a notice of change of address filed in 25 another pending case, the Court served the screening order to the address provided in that other 26 case. (Doc. 14.) On August 21, 2023, the Court’s order was again returned, as “Undeliverable, 27 Not Deliverable as Addressed.” 28 The extended deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or a notice of his 1 1 willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims identified has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to 2 respond to the Court’s orders, file a notice of change of address, or otherwise communicate with 3 the Court. Therefore, on November 7, 2023, the magistrate judge issued Findings and 4 Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a 5 Court order and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 16.) The Court served the Findings and 6 Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections thereto were to be filed within 7 fourteen days after service. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the deadline to do so 8 has passed. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 10 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the magistrate judge’s 11 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Based on the 12 foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. 14 15 ADOPTED in full. 2. 16 17 The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 7, 2023, (Doc. 16), are This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court orders and failure to prosecute. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 12, 2023 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.