Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06232/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06232-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE CHAVEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

SHERIFF MACK WIMBISH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:04-cv-06232-REC-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

OBEY A COURT ORDER

(Docs. 12, 14, and 16) 

Plaintiff Jose Chavez (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local Rule 72-302.

On February 9, 2005, the Magistrate Judge dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint and ordered plaintiff to file an amended

complaint within thirty days. On April 4, 2005, after more than

thirty days passed and plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise

respond to the Court’s order, the Court issued a Findings and

Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action for failure

to obey a court order. On April 12, 2005, plaintiff filed

Case 1:04-cv-06232-REC-LJO Document 17 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 3
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

objections to the Findings and Recommendations and requested the

appointment of counsel.

On May 9, 2005, the Magistrate issued an order denying

plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and notifying

plaintiff that if he wishes to pursue this action at this time, he

must file an amended complaint in compliance with the order of

February 9, 2005. The Magistrate informed plaintiff that in the

alternative, he may file a notice of voluntary dismissal, which

would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to

refiling at a later date. The Magistrate warned plaintiff that if

he filed neither an amended complaint nor a notice of voluntary

dismissal, the Findings and Recommendations filed on April 4, 2005,

would be submitted to the undersigned and this action would be

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey the court’s

orders. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or a notice

of voluntary dismissal, or otherwise responded to the Magistrate’s

order. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de novo review of

this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 4, 2005, is

ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for

plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s orders of February 9, 2005.

///

Case 1:04-cv-06232-REC-LJO Document 17 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06232-REC-LJO Document 17 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 3