(PC) Humes v. Eliston et al, No. 2:2017cv02650 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/10/18 DENYING 4 , 5 motions requesting financial assistance in the pursuit of this action. The clerk of the court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to abide by an order of this court. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF

(PC) Humes v. Eliston et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JON HUMES, 12 No. 2:17-cv-2650 AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ELISTON, et al., 15 ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights 18 complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is referred to the undersigned United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). By order 20 filed December 28, 2017, plaintiff was directed to submit, within thirty days, an application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the full filing fee. See ECF No. 3. The court informed 22 plaintiff that “failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 23 dismissed.” Id. at 2. 24 Three months later, on March 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Dismiss Filing Fees,” 25 to enable plaintiff to use his “pro se funds . . . for discovery, to hopefully build a worthy case to 26 present to The Awesome District Court.” ECF No. 4. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a 27 “motion” requesting “$500.00 per month in pro se money to facilitate discovery and other 28 advances” in this case. ECF No. 5. Both requests will be denied. Prisoners are required to pay 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the full filing fee to commence a civil action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), and the court has no 2 authority to provide funds to pro se litigants for discovery or other litigation expenses. 3 More importantly, plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s December 28, 2017 4 order. Under some circumstances, a pro se litigant’s failure to respond to an order of the court 5 may warrant a reminder or order to show cause. Not in this case. Plaintiff has filed more than 6 forty pro se cases in this court in less than a year, significantly contributing to the workload of the 7 court. This context requires that plaintiff be held accountable for his responses – or failure to 8 respond – to the court’s orders. 9 Plaintiff’s failure to abide by an order of this court authorizes the dismissal of this action 10 under both the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Local Rule 110 provides that 11 failure to comply with court orders or rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all 12 sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Similarly, the 13 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or to 14 comply with the rules or orders of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motions requesting financial assistance in the pursuit of this action, ECF 17 Nos. 4 & 5, are denied. 18 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 19 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 20 prejudice for failure to abide by an order of this court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 23 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 24 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 25 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 2 Cir. 1991). 3 SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: May 10, 2018 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.