Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05950/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05950-11/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05950-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 56)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. 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 November 7, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on Plaintiff and which

contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty (20) days. On

December 7, 2005, after receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff

filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 68 Filed 02/23/06 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

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 finds Plaintiff’s objection to the Findings and

Recommendations to be unpersuasive. Plaintiff was warned by the

Magistrate Judge in his order of September 28, 2005, that “[i]n

light of the fact that plaintiff has yet to file a pleading that

complies with Rule 8 and will allow for the court to screen it on

the merits, but nevertheless finds the time to burden the court

with motions seeking injunctive relief that plaintiff is clearly

not entitled to at this juncture, plaintiff’s failure to file a

third amended complaint that complies with this order and the order

of January 19, 2005, will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed. (See Court Docs. 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 32, 33,

38, 40, 41, and 42.).” (Doc. 49, 4:3-8.) Despite this admonition,

Plaintiff failed to file a third amended complaint, yet, along with

several other motions, found time to file two more motions in

contravention of the Court’s order of October 11, 2005, prohibiting

the filing of any further motions for preliminary injunctive

relief. (Docs. 57, 59, 64, 66.) 

Plaintiff is either unable or unwilling to file a pleading

that is sufficient to allow the Court to screen Plaintiff’s claims

on their merits, but is able and willing to tax the resources of

this Court by filing a multitude of other documents, many of which

were baseless motions for preliminary injunctive relief. Justice

///

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 68 Filed 02/23/06 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

does not require that the Court allow Plaintiff further opportunity

to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s orders. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 7, 2005,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and 

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on

Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s orders of January

19, 2005, and September 28, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 68 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 3