(PC) Dent v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al, No. 2:2017cv01146 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/28/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
(PC) Dent v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN KEITH DENT, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-1146-JAM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 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). 21 On March 1, 2018, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court dismissed the complaint, explained the deficiencies therein and 23 granted plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. ECF 24 No. 12. The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result a recommendation that this 25 action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The time for acting passed and plaintiff failed to file 26 an amended complaint, or otherwise respond to the court’s order. 27 28 Accordingly, on April 18, 2018, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 orders. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time and objections on April 19 2 & 27, 2018. ECF Nos. 16, 18. On April 30, 2018, the court withdrew the April 18 findings and 3 recommendations and granted plaintiff an additional 45 days in which to file his amended 4 complaint. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has again failed to timely file an amended 5 complaint or otherwise respond to the court’s order. 6 A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 7 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 8 inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or 9 without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. 10 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in 11 dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended 12 complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 13 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 14 regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 15 16 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 22 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 23 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 24 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 25 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 Dated: June 28, 2018. 27 28 2