Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00467/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00467-4/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

TRAVIS WARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00467-JLT-BAM

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE 

(Doc. 21)

Plaintiff Travis Ward (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with counsel, filed the instant action on 

April 17, 2022. (Doc. 1.) By stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 

on September 3, 2024. (See Docs. 14, 15.) Defendant California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) on September 24, 2024. (Doc. 16.) The motion was referred to the undersigned for the 

preparation of findings and recommendations. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff did not file a timely 

opposition or otherwise respond to the motion. 

On October 11, 2024, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the 

action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition. (Doc. 19.) The 

Court informed Plaintiff that he could comply with the Court’s order by filing an opposition or 

Case 1:24-cv-00467-JLT-BAM Document 23 Filed 11/21/24 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

statement of non-opposition to CDCR’s motion to dismiss. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was expressly 

warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action with 

prejudice. (Id.) 

On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration in response to the 

Court’s order to show cause. (Doc. 20.) In the response, counsel indicated an intent to submit a 

proper opposition to the motion to dismiss within seven days (Id.) 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to CDCR’s motion or request an extension of time to 

respond within the seven-day period. As a result, on November 6, 2024, the Court issued 

findings and recommendations that recommended this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. 21.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 

filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4-5.)

On November 20, 2024, in lieu of filing objections, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of 

points and authorities in opposition to CDCR’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 22.) In light of the 

opposition filing, the findings and recommendations issued on November 6, 2024, are HEREBY 

VACATED. The deadline for any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition is December 2, 2024. See L.R. 

230(d). The motion to dismiss will be submitted on the record without oral argument upon the 

expiration of the reply deadline. L.R. 230(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00467-JLT-BAM Document 23 Filed 11/21/24 Page 2 of 2