Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-2799 FCD EFB P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, Warden,

et al., ORDER AND FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 19, 2005, plaintiff filed a document challenging a

transfer to a different facility and attendant loss of personal property, claims not contained in

plaintiff’s original or amended complaints. This document seeks to challenge conditions of

confinement, but is filed on a form for a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The form bears the case number assigned to this civil rights action. It is unclear whether plaintiff

is seeking to file a new complaint alleging new claims, or is attempting to file as a separate

action, a habeas petition, or is submitting the document as an exhibit. Plaintiff has thirty days

from the date this order is served within which to file a response to this order, clarifying what

plaintiff intends by this filing. If plaintiff does not respond within the thirty-day period, the 

court will order the document stricken from the record.

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 124 Filed 12/08/06 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 1

 The case was reassigned to the undersigned on October 3, 2006 .

2

 Plaintiff has filed two motions to extend the discovery deadline, one on August 14, 2006,

and the other on October 13, 2006.1 Although an order was not issued on the earlier motion,

both motions seek to extend the same deadline and the later motion was denied on November 16,

2006, on the basis that plaintiff had not shown good cause to reopen discovery. That order

applies to the earlier request as well.

On August 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order filed

August 17, 2006, which denied several motions by plaintiff. Plaintiff has not shown any change

in circumstances and the motion for reconsideration is denied. 

On November 16, 2006, plaintiff was granted fifteen days within which to file a motion

to amend and a proposed amended complaint. Plaintiff was admonished that his failure to do so

would result in the issuance of findings and a recommendation that defendants McCargar,

Baughman, White, Sims, Sanders, Rosario, and Hill be dismissed from this action. The fifteenday period has expired and plaintiff has failed to file a motion to amend and a proposed amended

complaint. Accordingly, the court recommends that defendants McCargar, Baughman, White,

Sims, Sanders, Rosario, and Hill be dismissed from this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date this order is served within which to file a

response to this order, clarifying for the court his intention in filing the “amended petition” on

May 19, 2005. If plaintiff fails to respond within the time allowed, the court will order the

“amended petition” stricken. 

2. Plaintiff’s August 14, 2006, motion to extend the discovery deadline is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s August 28, 2006, motion for reconsideration is denied.

////

////

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 124 Filed 12/08/06 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

3

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants McCargar, Baughman, White, Sims,

Sanders, Rosario, and Hill be dismissed from this action.

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 twenty 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. 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: December 8, 2006.

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 124 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 3