(PC) Miller v. Mule Creek State Prison, et al.,, No. 2:2021cv01122 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/22/2022 DIRECTING the clerk to assign a District Judge to this action. Senior Judge William B. Shubb and Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes assigned to this case for all further proceedings. It is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 21-cv-1122 WBS DB (PC). (Spichka, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ELIJAH LEE MILLER, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:21-cv-01122 DB P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, 14 Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 16 17 U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated February 8, 2022, the court found plaintiff’s complaint failed to 18 state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 11.) The court dismissed the complaint and granted plaintiff 19 thirty-days leave to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended 20 complaint, request an extension of time, or otherwise respond to the court’s order within thirty 21 days. On May 24, 2022, the court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint or show cause 22 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court 23 orders within 30 days of the date of this order. (ECF No. 14.) A thirty-day deadline was set for 24 plaintiff to respond. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to abide by the court’s order 25 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.) More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not shown cause why this action 26 27 should not be dismissed, filed an amended complaint, requested an extension of time, or 28 //// 1 1 otherwise responded to the court’s orders. Accordingly, it will be recommended that this action 2 be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. 3 4 5 6 7 For the reasons state above, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to randomly assign a district judge to this action. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 11 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 12 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 13 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: November 22, 2022 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DB:14 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/mill1122.fr_dism 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.
