(PC) Tucker v. Calvin et al, No. 2:2009cv00087 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/03/09 ORDERING the clerk of the court shall assign a District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant's 07/24/09 motion to dismiss 12 be granted; and this action be dismissed. MOTION to DISMISS 12 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Tucker v. Calvin et al Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAMUEL H. TUCKER, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 vs. D. CALVIN, ORDER AND Defendant. 15 16 No. CIV S-09-0087 GGH P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 24, 2009, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 12(b). On September 2, 2009, inmate Hakeem Akbar, a non-party, filed an opposition to the 19 motion on plaintiff’s behalf. The opposition was not signed by plaintiff. 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 requires that every pleading must be signed by an attorney of 21 record or by a party if the party is unrepresented. On September 16, 2009, the undersigned 22 ordered the opposition stricken because it did comply with Rule 11. Plaintiff was granted twenty 23 days to file an opposition. 24 On October 15, 2009, objections were filed to the September 16, 2009, order. The 25 objections contain signature lines for both plaintiff and inmate Akbar but are not signed. The 26 objections also appear to have been written by inmate Akbar. Because the objections are not 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 signed by plaintiff as required by Rule 11, they are disregarded. 2 Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file 3 written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any 4 opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On April 30, 2009, plaintiff was advised of the 5 requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a 6 motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. For the reasons discussed above, 7 the court finds that plaintiff has failed to oppose defendant’s motion. 8 9 10 Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the motion. In the alternative, the court has reviewed the motion and finds that it has merit. 11 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this action; and 13 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Defendant’s July 24, 2009, motion to dismiss (no. 12) be granted; and 15 2. This action be dismissed. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 18 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 21 shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 22 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 23 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 DATED: November 3, 2009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 tuck87.57 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.