(PC) Evans v. Corter et al, No. 2:2022cv01377 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/20/2023 REASSIGNING CASE to District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson no longer assigned to case as the only judge. New Case Number: 2:22-CV-1377 TLN JDP. FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/20/2023 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, set forth in the 12/8/2022 Order 9 . Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley, and Objections due within 14 days of the service of the F & R's.(Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Evans v. Corter et al Doc. 10 Case 2:22-cv-01377-TLN-JDP Document 10 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ARKEEM EVANS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CORTER, et al., 15 Defendants. Case No. 2:22-cv-01377-JDP (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 On October 4, 2022, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that it alleged 18 cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Corter and Martin. I 19 notified him that its other claims were not viable. ECF No. 8. I gave plaintiff thirty days to file 20 an amended complaint or to provide notice to the court of his intent to stand by his current 21 complaint and to proceed only with his Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against 22 defendants Corter and Martin. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff did not timely file either an amended 23 complaint or a notice of election to proceed on the cognizable claims. Accordingly, on December 24 8, 2022, I ordered him to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be 25 dismissed. ECF No. 9. I notified him that if he wished to continue with this action he must file, 26 within twenty-one days, either an amended complaint or a notice of election stating that he wishes 27 to proceed only with his Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Corter and 28 Martin. I also warned him that failure to comply with the order would result in a 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-01377-TLN-JDP Document 10 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 2 1 recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. 2 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise 3 responded to the December 8, 2022 order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that that the 4 Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 5 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court 7 orders, for the reasons set forth in the December 8, 2022 order. 8 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 9 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 10 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 11 Eastern District of California. The parties may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and 12 recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. 13 Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 14 Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 15 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: 19 20 January 20, 2023 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.