Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH WIDBY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

HESSELTINE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT

KIM (Doc. 54) 

Plaintiff, Joseph Widby (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On November 15, 2006, the court issued an order requiring

plaintiff to show cause why defendant Kim should not be dismissed

from this action, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service

of that order. The fifteen-day period has passed, and plaintiff

has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s

order.

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a

party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the

Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/15/06 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

The court’s order of November 15, 2006, expressly stated: “The

failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will

result in a recommendation that defendant Kim be dismissed from

this action.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal

of defendant Kim would result from non-compliance with the court’s

order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendant Kim be

DISMISSED from this action based on plaintiff's failure to obey the

court’s order of November 15, 2006.

These Findings and Recommendations are 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 twenty (20) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations,

plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a

document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is 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: December 15, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2