Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00016-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEEKS, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-00016-TLN-CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action which is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 

Local Rule 302(c)(3). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint filed on January 4, 2021

attempts to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985 against the Cities of Stockton 

and Manteca, the Stockton Police Department, San Joaquin County, San Joaquin County Court, 

San Joaquin County Probation Department, Christian Life Church, and several individually 

named defendants. (ECF No. 1.) Although the complaint does not clearly set forth the causes of 

action or identify which defendants are named for which claim, plaintiff appears to attempt to 

state causes of action for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and a conspiracy to violate his 

constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1 at 4, 9, 19.)

In an order filed on April 5, 2021, the court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e) and ordered its dismissal for failure to state a claim and failure to meet the pleading 

standards of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 4.) The order of dismissal 

Case 2:21-cv-00016-TLN-CKD Document 6 Filed 05/14/21 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

additionally noted that all of plaintiff’s claims appear to be barred by the doctrine of Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), in that plaintiff was arrested and pleaded guilty to 

criminal charges in connection with the events described in the complaint.

The order of dismissal explained the deficiencies in the pleading and granted plaintiff 

thirty days to file an amended complaint. The order of dismissal warned plaintiff that failure to 

file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

The time granted for plaintiff to file an amended complaint has passed. Although plaintiff 

has communicated with the court in a letter filed on May 10, 2021, plaintiff has not filed an 

amended complaint, sought an extension of time to do so, or indicated that he intends to do so.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED:

1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b); and

2. The Clerk’s office 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” 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: May 13, 2021

8.Whitsitt.0016.fta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00016-TLN-CKD Document 6 Filed 05/14/21 Page 2 of 2