(PC) Harrell v. California Forensic Medical Group Inc. et al, No. 2:2015cv00579 - Document 60 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/27/2017 DIRECTING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this case and RECOMMENDING that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Referred to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (York, M)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA NEIL HARRELL, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:15-cv-0579 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 21, 2017, the court dismissed plaintiff’s fourth amended 20 complaint. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff was permitted thirty days to file a fifth amended complaint. 21 On June 29, 2017, plaintiff moved for an extension of time. On July 11, 2017, the court granted 22 plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file a fifth amended complaint. (ECF No. 57.) 23 On July 24, 2017, the copy of the July 11 order that was served on plaintiff was returned to 24 the court as undeliverable because plaintiff was no longer in custody. Based on a change of 25 address plaintiff filed in another action in this court, the court updated plaintiff’s address to 7217 26 Franklin Blvd., Ste. 370, Sacramento, CA 95823. On September 11, 2017, a copy of the court’s 27 July 11 order was re-served on plaintiff at that address. Therefore, any fifth amended complaint 28 should have been filed within thirty days of the September 11 order. 1 1 On October 23, 2017, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why this 2 case should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute it. More than fourteen days have passed 3 and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court’s October 23 order. 4 5 6 7 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to assign a district judge to this case; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. 8 These findings and recommendations will be 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 fourteen days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 11 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 12 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 13 time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 14 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 Dated: November 27, 2017 16 17 18 19 20 21 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/harr0579.fta fr 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2