Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00016-6/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

IVAN MATTHEWS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

E.S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00016-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT’S

ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM

Plaintiff Ivan Matthews (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 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 February 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was 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. On March 3, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the

Case 1:05-cv-00016-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 03/29/06 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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

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

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s objection and finds that

it does not set forth good cause for plaintiff’s failure to obey

the Court’s order. Plaintiff asserts that he could not obey the

Court’s order because he has been “constantly litigating” his

criminal appeal in a different court. (Obj., 1:26-28.) 

Plaintiff’s litigation demands in other actions do not provide a

basis upon which to excuse plaintiff’s failure to respond to the

Court’s orders in this case. At the very least, Plaintiff could

have sought an extension of time to comply with the order. 

Silence in the face of a court order is not acceptable. 

In this case, this is the third time the Magistrate Judge

issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal for

failure to obey a court order. (Docs. 4, 8, 21.) The previous

two times, the Magistrate Judge vacated the Findings and

Recommendations after plaintiff filed objections. (Docs. 6, 13.) 

Plaintiff is aware of what will occur when he fails to obey the

Court’s orders. The Court has twice exercised leniency, yet

plaintiff again failed to comply with the Court’s order and then

tendered a frivolous excuse for his failure to comply. It is

notable that while plaintiff was apparently unable to file any

response at all to the Court’s order, he was able to file an

objection once the Findings and Recommendations was issued. 

Case 1:05-cv-00016-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 03/29/06 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

There is no good cause to set aside the Findings and

Recommendations and allow plaintiff another opportunity to comply

with the Court’s order. The Court will dismiss this action

without prejudice rather than with prejudice. However, this

dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

With respect to plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint

lodged with the Clerk’s Office on March 13, 2006, the filing is

not signed. Even if the Court had been inclined to set aside the

Findings and Recommendations and review the amended complaint,

unsigned filings are unacceptable. In light of this order, the

Clerk’s Office shall return the lodged complaint to plaintiff. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 17,

2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Clerk’s Office shall return to plaintiff his

unsigned, lodged amended complaint; and

3. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for

plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of

January 6, 2006, and for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00016-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 3