Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00941/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00941-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pedro Torres Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action by filing a complaint on June 18, 

2014. (Doc. 1.) The Court determined Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim, and dismissed his 

complaint with leave to amend on June 25, 2014. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff requested an extension of time to 

file an amended complaint on June 17, 2014 (Doc. 5), which was granted by the Court on July 28, 

2014 (Doc. 6). However, Plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline ordered by the Court, and did 

not file an amended complaint. 

On August 19, 2014, the Court issued an order to show cause why the action should not be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (Doc. 7.) 

The Court ordered Plaintiff to either show cause or file an amended complaint within fourteen days of 

the date of service. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff timely filed a response on September 2, 2014, in which he 

explained that he was sorry he “wasted the courts [sic] time” and that he was “sorry to put the court 

PEDRO TORRES HERNANDEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPT., et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00941 - --- - JLT 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ASSIGN A 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THE 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Case 1:14-cv-00941-AWI-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 2
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

through all of this.” (Doc. 8.) Based upon the response, it appears Plaintiff does not wish to prosecute 

this action at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause is construed as a 

request for dismissal of the action.

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED 

to assign a United States District Judge to the action.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. The action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this matter.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00941-AWI-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 2