(PC) Tatum v. Butte County Sheriff Department et al, No. 2:2016cv02481 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/20/17 ORDERING the clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell randomly assigned to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
(PC) Tatum v. Butte County Sheriff Department et al Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALPHONSO F. TATUM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-2481-EFB P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 5, 2017, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 21 22 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court dismissed the amended complaint, explained the deficiencies therein 23 and granted plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. 24 ECF No. 25. The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result a recommendation 25 that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. The time for 26 acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the 27 court’s order. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 2 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 3 inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or 4 without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. 5 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in 6 dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended 7 complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 8 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 9 regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 10 11 12 13 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 19 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 20 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 21 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 22 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 Dated: November 20, 2017. 24 25 26 27 28 2