Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02198/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02198-1/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

ERNEST MILLER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2198 MCE CMK P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint on October 4, 2006. This proceeding was

referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 by the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff did not file either the appropriate filing fee or a request to proceed in

forma pauperis when he filed his complaint. By order filed October 17, 2006, the court granted

plaintiff thirty days to either file the appropriate fee or to file a request to proceed in forma

pauperis. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the court’s October 17, 2006 order

would result in a recommendation that his complaint be dismissed without prejudice. To date,

plaintiff has failed to submit either the appropriate filing fee or a request to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-02198-MCE -CMK Document 7 Filed 11/16/06 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

The court notes that on November 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a “Motion: to Lodge

Document in Support of Above Action.” That motion alleged that officials at High Desert State

Prison were knowingly and intentionally stopping plaintiff from purchasing stamps and

envelopes. However, the motion said nothing about prison officials interfering with plaintiff’s

submission of his trust account statement. Further, the court notes that plaintiff has ignored the

court’s order to submit trust account statements in other cases pending in this district. See Holder

v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 2000)(pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, a court may take

judicial notice of orders, decisions, or proceedings in any federal or state court). 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to either pay the

appropriate filing fee or file a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 15, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02198-MCE -CMK Document 7 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2