Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00954/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00954-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SABINO NUNEZ GUDINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

B.C. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00954-LJO-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Sabino Nunez Gudino (“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 January 25, 2010, the Court

screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under

Section 1983. (Doc. #18.) Plaintiff was informed of the deficiencies in his claims and was directed

to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff received numerous extensions of time to file his

second amended complaint -- the latest in an April 5, 2010 order extending the deadline to thirty (30)

days after the date of service of the April 5, 2010 order. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint

and has not requested any further extension of time.

Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the Court will recommend dismissal

of this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 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).

///

1

Case 1:05-cv-00954-LJO -SKO Document 31 Filed 05/24/10 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

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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: May 22, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-00954-LJO -SKO Document 31 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 2