Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02794/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02794-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JANET DENISE PHELPS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR 

COURT COUNTY OF SOLANO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2794 MCE GGH PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

By order filed February 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiff twenty-eight days to file an 

amended complaint. In the February 2nd order, the court informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in 

the complaint. The twenty-eight day period expired, and plaintiff did not file an amended 

complaint or otherwise respond to the court’s order. 

 Accordingly, for the reasons given in the February 2, 2015, order, and for plaintiff’s 

failure to present an amended complaint curing the defects of the original complaint as explained 

therein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 

Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).1

 

1

 The court has given consideration to plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). The court has explained the defects in plaintiff’s complaint 

and advised plaintiff that failures to correct them might result in dismissal. Delay is nearly 

always prejudicial to defendants. On the other hand, dismissal precludes adjudicating the merits 

of plaintiff’s action. However, the court has considered less drastic sanctions, by issuing its order 

explaining the defects in the complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to cure the complaint’s defects leaves 

Case 2:14-cv-02794-MCE-GGH Document 5 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: March 17, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

GGH:076/Phelps2794.fr 

 

the court no choice. The court’s need to manage its docket does not permit further devotion of 

scarce resources to the matter. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131-32 

n.1 (9th Cir.1987). 

Case 2:14-cv-02794-MCE-GGH Document 5 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 2