(PC) Walker v. Kernan et al, No. 2:2017cv01764 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/1/2019 RECOMMENING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Walker v. Kernan et al Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 G. DANIEL WALKER, 10 No. 2:17-cv-1764 KJM DB P Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 15 16 U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated August 8, 2019, plaintiff’s second amended complaint was 17 screened. (ECF No. 23.) The court found plaintiff had stated potentially cognizable retaliation 18 claim against defendants Green, Kumar, Muniz, and Martella. The court also found that the 19 complaint did not contain any other cognizable claims. Plaintiff was given the option to proceed 20 immediately on his retaliation claims or to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was directed to complete and return a form indicating his decision within 21 22 fourteen days. He was warned that failure to comply with the court’s order would result in a 23 recommendation that this action be dismissed. Those fourteen days have passed, and plaintiff has 24 not returned the form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action, updated his address, 1 25 1 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s most recent notice of change of address indicated that he was housed at California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. (ECF No. 18.) However, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s inmate locator website: https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ indicates that plaintiff is presently incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran. Local Rule 183(b) requires that a person appearing in propia persona promptly inform the court of any address change. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 or otherwise responded to the court’s order. In light of plaintiff’s failure to comply with court 2 orders and the local rules, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed. 3 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 7 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 8 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 10 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 11 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 Dated: October 1, 2019 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DLB:12 DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner.Civil.Rights/walk1764.f&r.dism 21 22 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.
