(PC) Williams v. Department of Motor Vehicles et al, No. 2:2008cv02348 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/11/2010 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(PC) Williams v. Department of Motor Vehicles et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIC G. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 No. CIV S-08-2348 LKK EFB P vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Director, et al., 14 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 7, 2009, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint was so prolix and 19 obscure that it violated the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and that 20 the court could not discharge its responsibility under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to screen the complaint. 21 Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within sixty days. 22 On December 17, 2009, plaintiff requested an extension of time. On December 22, 2009, 23 the court granted plaintiff an additional sixty days in which to file his amended complaint. On 24 April 12, 2010, when plaintiff had still failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond 25 to the court’s order, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed. In response, 26 plaintiff filed objections on May 4, 2010, requesting an additional extension of time to file his 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 amended complaint. In an abundance of caution, on June 16, 2010, the undersigned vacated the 2 April 12, 2010, findings and recommendations and gave plaintiff an additional twenty days to 3 file his amended complaint. Plaintiff was admonished that the court did not intend to grant any 4 additional requests for extensions of time and that a failure to comply would once again result in 5 a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 6 7 8 9 The 20-day period granted on June 16, 2010 has expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 12 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.1 Such a document should be captioned 14 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 15 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 16 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 Dated: August 11, 2010. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 As plaintiff has had over ten months to simply amend his complaint, the undersigned will not entertain any requests for extensions of time to file objections to these findings and recommendations. If plaintiff files objections that do not also include a proposed amended complaint, that in and of itself may be grounds for the district judge to overrule the objections. 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.