Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00024-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

A. KING, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00024 AWI GSA PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED

OBJECTIONS DUE IN TWENTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement 

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se 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 302. 

By order filed May 27, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing the operative 

complaint for failure to state a claim and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 

thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

In the May 27, 2015, order, the Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his 

complaint, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim 

upon which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the 

Court dismisses the claims made in the original complaint with prejudice for failure to state a 

Case 1:15-cv-00024-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 2
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

claim upon which the Court could grant relief. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th

Cir. 2007)(recognizing longstanding rule that leave to amend should be granted even if no 

request to amend was made unless the court determines that the pleading could not possible be 

cured by the allegation of other facts); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)(pro 

se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that 

the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal with prejudice upheld where court had instructed 

plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

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)(1)(B). Within twenty 

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.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 

772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1394(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00024-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2