(PC) King v. California Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2006cv00065 - Document 90 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/20/09 ORDERING that the 12/17/08 findings and recommendations are VACATED; Plaintiff is ordered to respond to the 10/3/08 motion for summaryjudgement by 2/4/09; Defendants have until 2/11/09 to reply to plaintiffs response; RECOMMENDING that defendants motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution be denied. Motion referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections due within 20 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) King v. California Department of Corrections et al Doc. 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEVIN KING, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0065 LKK GGH P Defendant. ORDER & vs. CDCR, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 17 18 19 / Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 17, 2008, the court issued findings and recommendations granting 20 defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed October 3, 2008, as plaintiff failed to file an 21 opposition and did not appear at the November 20, 2008, hearing. On December 5, 2008, 22 defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and the hearing was set for January 23 15, 2009. Plaintiff filed no opposition. 24 On the January 15, 2009, hearing date for the motion to dismiss for lack of 25 prosecution, an attorney appeared for defendants and plaintiff appeared. Plaintiff explained that 26 he was unable to respond to the motions and appear in court due to grief from the one year 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 anniversary of the death of his son, on November 16, 2007. Plaintiff wishes to continue with the 2 prosecution of this case. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The December 17, 2008, findings and recommendations are vacated; 5 2. Plaintiff is ordered to respond to the October 3, 2008, motion for summary 6 judgement by February 4, 2009; 7 3. Defendants’1 have until February 11, 2009 to reply to plaintiff’s response. 8 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution is denied. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 12 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 15 shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 16 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 17 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 DATED: January 20, 2009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 19 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 GGH: AB king0065.vac 23 24 25 26 1 All defendants in the motion for summary judgment. 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.
