Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00505/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00505-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH WHITAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CRANE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00505 KJM DAD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On August 4, 2014, this court issued an order in this action denying plaintiff’s motion for 

a temporary restraining order, and dismissing plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with leave 

to amend. (See ECF No. 23.) At that time plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a Third 

Amended Complaint together with a new application to proceed in forma pauperis that included a 

certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the preceding six-month period. (Id.) 

Plaintiff was informed then that “[f]ailure . . . to timely file a new and properly completed 

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a Third Amended Complaint in accordance with this 

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” (Id. at 8.)

The thirty-day period has long since expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 

order. Plaintiff did file an untimely request, on October 24, 2014, for a blank USM-285 form and 

summons to allow him to serve a purported defendant not named in his Second Amended 

Complaint. (See ECF No. 24.) However, plaintiff’s untimely request was not responsive to the 

Case 2:13-cv-00505-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 12/03/14 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

court’s August 4, 2014 order. Moreover, there is no operative pleading before the court, plaintiff 

has failed to file a third amended complaint in the time provided for him to do so and has still not 

filed a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis (see ECF No. 15).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice.

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)(l). 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).1 

Dated: December 2, 2014

 

DAD:4

whit0505.fifp.tac

 

1

If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action he may submit with his objections to these 

findings and recommendations a proper, fully supported application to proceed in forma pauperis 

along with a proposed third amended complaint. If appropriate the undersigned would then 

vacate these findings and recommendations.

Case 2:13-cv-00505-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 2