Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187-8/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

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

KEVIN ALLEN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

V. BENTACOURT, et al.,

 

Defendants.

1:18-cv-01187-NONE-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 

DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 28.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

Kevin Allen (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On July 24, 2019, the court screened the 

Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.) 

On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) On 

December 11, 2019, the court screened the First Amended Complaint and dismissed it for failure 

to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 15.) 

On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff requested reconsideration of the screening order by the 

district judge, and also appealed the screening order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF 

No. 17.) On January 27, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal (no. 19-17602) for 

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 35 Filed 08/21/20 Page 1 of 3
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

lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 19.) On January 30, 2020, District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill 

denied Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and ordered Plaintiff to comply with the screening 

order within thirty days. (ECF No. 20.) The Ninth Circuit’s mandate for appeal no. 19-17602 

was issued on February 18, 2020. (ECF No. 24.)

On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff appealed the district judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s 

request for reconsideration to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 22.) On March 27, 

2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal (no. 20-15265) for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF 

No. 26.) The Ninth Circuit’s mandate for appeal no. 20-15265 was issued on April 20, 2020. 

(ECF No. 27.)

On April 23, 2020, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file the Second 

Amended Complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 28.) On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 

document titled Request for Judicial Notice in which he again requests reconsideration of the 

December 11, 2019 screening order. (ECF No. 30.) On June 26, 2020, the court issued an order 

denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and requiring Plaintiff to file the Second Amended 

Complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 32.)

On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel to assist him with 

the amended complaint. (ECF No. 33.) On July 23, 2020, the court denied the motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 34.)

The thirty-day time period for filing the Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to the 

court’s June 26, 2020 order, has expired and Plaintiff has not filed the Second Amended 

Complaint. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief 

may be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this case be DISMISSED, with prejudice, based 

on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and failure to obey a court order; and

2. The Clerk be directed to close this case.

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 fourteen 

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 35 Filed 08/21/20 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

(14) days from the date of service of 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 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 35 Filed 08/21/20 Page 3 of 3