Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02085/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02085-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2085 FCD EFB P

vs.

GRAY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

On December 4, 2007, 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 days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

On December 21, 2006, the court filed findings and recommendations,

recommending dismissal of this action for plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff filed objections, and those findings and recommendations were vacated by order filed

January 30, 2007. Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date

Case 2:03-cv-02085-FCD-EFB Document 69 Filed 02/22/08 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

2

of that order. Thereafter, plaintiff was granted an additional 90 days in which to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 20, 2007. The court filed findings and

recommendations on December 4, 2007, stating that plaintiff’s June 14, 2006, complaint, at 147

pages, was so prolix and obscure that the court could not reasonably discharge its duties. The

court advised plaintiff on the filing of an amended complaint and informed plaintiff that failure

to file an amended complaint that complied with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Procedure, the Local Rules of Practice, and the terms of that order would result

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.. Plaintiff did not file an

amended complaint until more than a year later, and this complaint is fraught with similar

obstacles to screening. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 4, 2007, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: February 21, 2008.

Case 2:03-cv-02085-FCD-EFB Document 69 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 2