Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05917/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05917-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

DEWAYNE ALBERT CROMPTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05917-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT BE DENIED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, AS MOOT

(Doc. 28)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Dewayne Albert Crompton (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil action. Plaintiff initiated an action on June 10, 2004, along with coplaintiff Gust Marion Janis. The court issued an order severing the co-plaintiffs’ claims, directing

the Clerk’s Office to open this action for plaintiff Crompton, and ordering plaintiff Crompton to file

an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 21, 2005. On May 24, 2006,

the court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to comply with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on September 26, 2006.

For reasons unclear to the court, the United States filed a motion to dismiss or for summary

judgment on December 5, 2006. The court had neither screened the second amended complaint and

found it to state any cognizable claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, nor ordered the United States Marshal

to initiate service of process on any defendants named in the complaint. In a separate order issued

concurrently with this finding and recommendation, the court screened plaintiff’s second amended

Case 1:04-cv-05917-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 07/25/07 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

complaint and found that it does notstate any claims upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff was

granted one final opportunity to amend, and the United States was relieved of any obligation to file

a response until directed to do so by the court. 

In light of the court’s order, the United States’ pending motion is moot and it is HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that the motion be denied, without prejudice, on that ground.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 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: July 24, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05917-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 2