Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01217/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01217-4/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COLUMBUS ALLEN, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G. MATTESON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-01217-DC-EFB (PC) 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). 

 On March 25, 2024 the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 12. The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure state a 

claim but granted plaintiff 30 days leave to further amend his complaint to cure the defects. Id. 

The screening order warned plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint could result 

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. A subsequent order extended the time to file a 

second amended complaint to June 7, 2024. ECF No. 14. Five months past the deadline, plaintiff 

has not filed a second amended complaint. Thus, it appears that plaintiff is unable or unwilling to 

cure the defects in the complaint. 

 Plaintiff has filed two motions to stay this action pending court proceedings related to his 

Case 2:23-cv-01217-DC-EFB Document 18 Filed 01/02/25 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 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF Nos. 15 & 16. However, without an operative complaint, 

the motions to stay are essentially moot. In light of plaintiff’s continued failure to amend, it is 

recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice to refiling at a later date. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to stay this action (ECF Nos. 15 & 

16) are DENIED as moot. 

 It is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons 

stated in the March 25, 2024 screening order. 

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 fourteen 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 response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: December 31, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-01217-DC-EFB Document 18 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 2