(PS) Storman v. Kaiser, No. 2:2014cv02538 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/16/15 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL DAVID STORMAN, 12 No. 2:14-cv-2538 GEB DAD PS Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 KAISER, 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Michael Storman is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 17 18 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On April 29, 2015, the undersigned issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and 19 20 granting him leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days of that order. (Dkt. 21 No. 3.) On May 11, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a sixty-day extension of time to file his 22 amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 7.) On June 5, 2015, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion 23 for a sixty-day extension of time to comply with the court’s order. (Dkt. No. 9.) On September 23, 2015, after the sixty-day period had expired and plaintiff still had not 24 25 filed an amended complaint, the undersigned issued an order to show cause within fourteen days 26 as to why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s lack of prosecution and failure to 27 comply with the court’s orders. (Dkt. No. 16.) 28 ///// 1 1 On September 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a document stating that he “never understood . . . 2 how to write an amended complaint,” and that he “would have filed another complaint a long 3 time ago, if [he] could.” (Dkt. No. 17 at 1.) Therein, plaintiff also stated that he is unable to 4 obtain legal representation and asked the court to “rule in his favor with some appropriate 5 monetary damages granted to [plaintiff].” (Id.) 6 The court understands the difficulties parties face in proceeding pro se. Nonetheless, 7 federal district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil 8 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Moreover, this action 9 cannot proceed in the absence of a viable amended complaint. 10 11 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 14 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 15 with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 16 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 17 the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 18 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 Dated: October 16, 2015 20 21 22 DAD:6 Ddad1\orders.pro se\storman2538.fta.f&rs.docx 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.
