(PC) Williams v. Sandham et al, No. 2:2005cv00164 - Document 137 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 01/19/11 signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 01/19/11. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendants' motions to dismiss 125 and 127 , both premised on p laintiff's failure to file a timely pretrial statement be denied. Defendants be directed to file their pretrial statment no later than 30 days after any order adopting the findings and recommendations. MOTIONS to DISMISS 125 , 127 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Williams v. Sandham et al Doc. 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CURTIS J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 No. CIV S-05-0164 JAM EFB P vs. R. W. SANDHAM, et al., ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. / 15 16 Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 7, 2010, this court issued an order relieving defendants of their 18 obligation to file a pretrial statement and vacating the hearings on their motions to dismiss for 19 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Dckt. No. 129. The court further recommended that the action be 20 dismissed for failure to prosecute and that the motions to dismiss be denied as moot. Id. The 21 court’s order and recommendations were based on plaintiff’s failure to file his pretrial statement 22 by the deadline provided in the district judge’s September 30, 2010 order (Dckt. No. 124). 23 On January 6, 2010, plaintiff filed his pretrial statement along with a motion for an 24 extension of time to object to the December 7, 2010 findings and recommendations, explaining 25 that his near-continuous placement in administrative segregation since September 18, 2010, and 26 consequent lack of access to his legal materials and the law library, prevented him from timely 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 filing his pretrial statement. Dckt. Nos. 131, 132. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the order and findings and recommendations issued on December 7, 2010 are hereby vacated. It is further RECOMMENDED that: 1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dckt. Nos. 125 and 127), both premised on plaintiff’s failure to file a timely pretrial statement, be denied; and 2. Defendants be directed to file their pretrial statement no later than 30 days after any order adopting the findings and recommendations. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 10 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 11 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 12 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 13 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 14 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: January 19, 2011. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.