Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02348/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02348-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC G. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2348 LKK EFB P

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR

VEHICLES, Director, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On October 7, 2009, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint was so prolix and

obscure that it violated the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and that

the court could not discharge its responsibility under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to screen the complaint.

Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within sixty days. 

On December 17, 2009, plaintiff requested an extension of time. On December 22, 2009,

the court granted plaintiff an additional sixty days in which to file his amended complaint. On

April 12, 2010, when plaintiff had still failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond

to the court’s order, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed. In response,

plaintiff filed objections on May 4, 2010, requesting an additional extension of time to file his

Case 2:08-cv-02348-LKK -EFB Document 17 Filed 08/11/10 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

1

 As plaintiff has had over ten months to simply amend his complaint, the undersigned

will not entertain any requests for extensions of time to file objections to these findings and

recommendations. If plaintiff files objections that do not also include a proposed amended

complaint, that in and of itself may be grounds for the district judge to overrule the objections.

2

amended complaint. In an abundance of caution, on June 16, 2010, the undersigned vacated the

April 12, 2010, findings and recommendations and gave plaintiff an additional twenty days to

file his amended complaint. Plaintiff was admonished that the court did not intend to grant any

additional requests for extensions of time and that a failure to comply would once again result in

a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

The 20-day period granted on June 16, 2010 has expired and plaintiff has not filed an

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 

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, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties.1

 Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 11, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02348-LKK -EFB Document 17 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2