Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01049/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01049-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY MACK LEONARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01049-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY COURT 

ORDER

(Doc. No. 13)

Plaintiff Harvey Mack Leonard is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 Rule 302.

On February 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint in this action and found that he had stated cognizable claims against defendants Barrett 

and Gardenhire for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for assault 

and battery in violation of California law, but that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim 

against any other named defendant. (Doc. No. 12 at 18.) Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days 

from the date of service of that screening order to either file a second amended complaint or 

notify the court of his decision to proceed only on the claims found by the screening order to be 

cognizable against defendants Barrett and Gardenhire. (Id. at 19–20.) The court served the 

Case 1:18-cv-01049-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 05/12/20 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

2

screening order on plaintiff by mail on February 10, 2020. But, plaintiff did not file a second

amended complaint nor did he notify the court of his decision to proceed only on the cognizable 

claims against defendants Barrett and Gardenhire. 

Accordingly, on March 27, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) Those findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail on March 27, 2020 and contained notice that 

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the findings and 

recommendations. (Id.) To date, no objections to the pending findings and recommendations 

have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that 

the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 27, 2020 (Doc No. 13) are 

adopted in full; 

2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure 

to prosecute; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01049-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 2