(PC) Jones v. Fox, et al., No. 2:2017cv02190 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/14/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
(PC) Jones v. Fox, et al. Doc. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-2190-JAM-EFB P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOX, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On May 3, 2018, the court screened plaintiff’s original and amended complaints pursuant 21 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 32. The court dismissed the complaints, explained the 22 deficiencies therein and granted plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint to cure 23 the deficiencies. Id. The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a 24 recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has 25 not filed an amended complaint.1 26 27 28 1 He has, however, filed requests for four subpoenas to discovery the “true identity” of various defendants. See ECF Nos. 35, 36, 38. These requests are in no way responsive to the court’s screening order. 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. L.R. 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 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. L.R. 110. 12 These findings and recommendations are 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, any party may file written 15 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 16 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 17 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 18 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 19 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 20 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Dated: June 14, 2018. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2