Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00441/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00441-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID FALLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. ARREDONDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00441-NONE-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION ISSUED FEBRUARY 

14, 2020

(ECF No. 18)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff David Falls is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 26, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 

stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Arredondo, in his individual capacity, for excessive 

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims 

against any other defendants. (ECF No. 10.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a first 

amended complaint or notify the Court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the 

cognizable claims, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the order. (Id.)

Plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint, notify the Court in writing of his 

willingness to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the Court, or otherwise 

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 21 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 5
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

communicate with the Court within the allotted time. Therefore, on October 29, 2019, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with the Court’s August 26, 2019 screening order and failure to prosecute, 

within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 11.)

On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a written response to the Court’s order to show 

cause. (ECF No. 12.) 

On November 27, 2019, the Court vacated the October 29, 2019 order to show cause and 

granted Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time to file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.)

Plaintiff again did not file a first amended complaint, notify the Court in writing of his 

willingness to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the Court, or otherwise 

communicate with the Court within the allotted time. Therefore, on January 6, 2020, the Court 

issued a second order requiring Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s August 26, 2019 and November 26, 

2019 orders and failure to prosecute, within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the 

order. (ECF No. 14.)

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 15-day extension of time to file a first 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.)

On January 17, 2020, the Court vacated the January 6, 2020 order to show cause and 

granted Plaintiff a 15-day extension of time to either file a first amended complaint or a notice of 

his intent to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court in its August 26, 2019 

order. (ECF No. 16.) Further, the Court’s January 17, 2020 order again expressly warned 

Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation to a District 

Judge that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (Id.

at 3.)

The deadline for Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or a notice of his intent 

to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court expired on February 4, 2020. On 

February 14, 2020, after the Court’s docket did not indicate that the Court had received Plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint or Plaintiff’s notice of his intent to proceed only on the cognizable claim 

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 21 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 5
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

identified by the Court, the Court issued findings and recommendation recommending that this 

action be dismissed, without prejudice, based upon Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s August 

26, 2019, November 27, 2019, and January 17, 2020 orders, and failure to prosecute this action. 

(ECF No. 18.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice 

that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5.) 

On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed written objections to the February 14, 2020 findings 

and recommendation. (ECF No. 19.) In his objections, Plaintiff states that, on September 25, 

2019, he e-filed what he believed and understood to be an amended complaint. Nevertheless, 

after the Court informed him on November 26, 2019 that any submission of a first amended 

complaint through the e-filing system at Kern Valley State Prison would be improper, Plaintiff 

sent a copy of the first amended complaint to the Court using the U.S. Mail service at Kern 

Valley State Prison on December 19, 2019. However, on December 27, 2019, Plaintiff received a 

Clerk’s Notice from the Court dated December 23, 2019 returning Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and stating that, “[p]er the Standing Order, the document(s) is(are) returned unfiled and 

must be filed under E-Filing procedures.” (ECF No. 19, at 14.) Plaintiff asserts that this action 

should not be dismissed because he has done everything in his power to file his first amended 

complaint, but his attempts to file his first amended complaint through e-filing and through the 

U.S. mail have been rejected for reasons beyond his control, leaving him without any means 

available to file his first amended complaint.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has now provided the Court with evidence that, while he 

attempted to file his first amended complaint by physically mailing the documents to the Court in 

compliance with the Court’s orders, the Clerk’s office returned Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint to Plaintiff unfiled and told Plaintiff that the document must be e-filed. (ECF No. 19, 

at 14.) It is unclear why the Clerk’s office returned Plaintiff’s first amended complaint to 

Plaintiff unfiled and told Plaintiff to e-file the document. It may be that Plaintiff failed to clearly 

state that the document was an amended complaint and so the Clerk’s office believed that the 

document was an original complaint, which had to be e-filed because Kern Valley State Prison, 

Plaintiff’s current place of incarceration, participates in the e-filing program. However, given 

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 21 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

that Plaintiff failed to submit his first amended complaint along with his written objections, the 

Court cannot tell for certain why Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was returned to him unfiled.

Nevertheless, since Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has attempted to comply with the 

Court’s orders, the Court will vacate the February 14, 2020 findings and recommendations and 

grant Plaintiff one final 30-day extension of time to file his first amended complaint with the 

Court. As previously stated, Plaintiff must file his first amended complaint, and all other filings, 

with the Court by physically mailing the documents to the Court, not by e-filing. Further, 

Plaintiff must clearly title his amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and state the case 

number for his action, Case No. 1:19-cv-00441-NONE-SAB (PC), on the first page of his 

amended complaint. 

Additionally, the Court notes that, throughout his written objections, Plaintiff states that 

he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court in the Court’s 

August 26, 2019 screening order. However, Plaintiff also states that he wants to file an amended 

complaint in order to reserve the opportunity to add John Doe defendants whose identities have 

yet to be ascertained. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s original complaint and finds that 

Plaintiff did not plead any allegations against any Doe defendants in his original complaint. 

Therefore, if Plaintiff wishes to preserve the opportunity to identify actual defendants in place of 

Doe defendants, then Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state cognizable claims against any 

Doe defendants in his first amended complaint. Otherwise, if Plaintiff is truly willing to proceed 

only on the cognizable claim against Defendant Arredondo for excessive force and not attempt to 

state any cognizable claims against Doe defendants, then Plaintiff does not need to file a first 

amended complaint. Instead, Plaintiff can simply file a written notice clearly stating that he does 

not intend to amend and that he wants to proceed only on the cognizable claim against Defendant 

Arredondo, in his individual capacity, for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation issued on February 14, 2020, (ECF No. 18), are 

VACATED;

2. The Clerk’s office is directed to serve Plaintiff with an amended complaint form;

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 21 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which 

to file either:

a. A first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court 

in its August 26, 2019 order; or

b. A notice of his intend to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by 

the Court in its August 26, 2019 order;

4. If Plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff must clearly title his 

amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and state the case number for his 

action, Case No. 1:19-cv-00441-NONE-SAB (PC), on the first page of his 

amended complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff must file the first amended complaint 

with the Court by physically mailing his first amended complaint to the Court at: 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501

Fresno, CA 93721

5. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation to the District Judge that this action be dismissed for failure to 

obey a court order and failure to prosecute; and

6. Plaintiff is advised that any future failures to timely file will result in a 

recommendation to dismiss his case for failure to prosecute. No further 

OSC’s will be issued since Plaintiff has had numerous notices in the past and 

is aware of the consequences for not filing timely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 21 Filed 03/13/20 Page 5 of 5