Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00067/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00067-1/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

SAMUEL MERCADO ULLOA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RAYMOND D. ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00067-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Samuel Mercado Ulloa (“plaintiff”), is a prisoner

in federal custody proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action apparently pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971). 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 April 1, 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’s allegations only alleged medical negligence and not

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The

Magistrate Judge then granted Plaintiff leave to filed an amended

Case 1:05-cv-00067-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/24/05 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

complaint within thirty days. 

After more than thirty days passed without Plaintiff filing

an amended complaint, May 19, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed

Findings and Recommendations herein which 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

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

Case 1:05-cv-00067-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/24/05 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

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 May 19, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED for plaintiff’s failure to

obey the court’s order of April 1, 2005, and for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00067-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 3