Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01532/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01532-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES JIMINEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1532 LKK JFM P

vs.

E. TOWNSELL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Pursuant to notice, this matter came on for hearing on June 2, 2005 for

consideration of dismissal for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing. Eric

Turner, Esq., appeared as counsel for defendants. On April 22, 2005, plaintiff was ordered to

show cause in person and in writing why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of

prosecution. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to submit a declaration as required by the April

22, 2005 order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

The order to show cause followed plaintiff’s failure to appear at an April 14, 2005

hearing on defendants’ motions to compel production of documents, supplemental responses to

interrogatories, and plaintiff’s deposition, or to respond in any way to said motions. As noted

above, plaintiff did not appear at the show cause hearing, nor did he file the required declaration

or respond in any way to the court’s April 22, 2005 show cause order. This file reflects no

Case 2:04-cv-01532-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 06/22/05 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

activity by plaintiff for four months. Plaintiff submitted no reasons why this matter should not be

dismissed, did not provide an explanation for lack of activity in this case and described no plans

to prepare this case for trial.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this

action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations will be 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, 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 reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 21, 2005.

12

jimi1532.55

Case 2:04-cv-01532-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 2