Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06730/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06730-2/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

ROBERT LEE QUACKENBUSH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CDC, et al., 

Defendants. 

 /

1:04-cv-06730-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 12)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Robert Lee Quackenbush (“Plaintiff”), a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this

civil rights action seeking relief under 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 March 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the

complaint must be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge gave notice of

the pleading deficiencies in the complaint, namely that the

complaint failed to link the named defendants to the alleged

constitutional violations and Plaintiff’s allegations at best

only stated a claim for negligence. The Magistrate Judge then

granted Plaintiff leave to filed an amended complaint within

Case 1:04-cv-06730-AWI-LJO Document 14 Filed 07/27/05 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

thirty days. Upon Plaintiff’s request for more time to file an

amended complaint, on April 22, 2005, the Magistrate Judge gave

Plaintiff an addition thirty days in which to file an amended

complaint. 

When Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or

otherwise contact the court, on June 13, 2005, the Magistrate

Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that recommended this

action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s

March 16, 2005 order and for Plaintiff’s failure to state a

claim. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff

and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to

the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty

(20) days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court adopts the

recommendation that the action be dismissed. No complaint is

currently on file in this action, and this case cannot proceed

with a complaint on file. Further, the original complaint was

properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which the

court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446,

1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of

deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for

failure to state a claim). 

The court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in

which a plaintiff fails to keep an operative complaint on file by

Case 1:04-cv-06730-AWI-LJO Document 14 Filed 07/27/05 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

filing an amended complaint. The public’s interest in the

expeditious resolution of litigation weighs heavily in favor of

dismissal of such cases so that the court’s limited resources may

be spent on cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. 

Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits also

has little or no weight in actions where the plaintiff lacks

enough of an interest to file an amended complaint. The public

and the court have no interest in determining the truth or

falsity of the allegations that Plaintiff might raise in an

amended complaint if Plaintiff never files an amended complaint. 

The availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered,

but given that no complaint is on file, the court has no

effective sanction but to close the case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 13, 2005,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for

plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of March 16, 2005,

and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06730-AWI-LJO Document 14 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 3