Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00910/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00910-4/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

BILL KECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. BATRA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00910-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

ORDER THAT THE CLERK ASSIGN THIS 

CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Bill Keck is a civil detainee proceeding without counsel and without 

prepayment of fees in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s 

complaint was screened on December 2, 2019, and plaintiff was ordered to respond within 

thirty days. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff, however, filed neither a response to the screening order nor

a first amended complaint. On April 6, 2020, the court issued an order to show cause why the 

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. ECF No. 

9. That order warned that a failure to respond would “constitute another failure to comply with 

a court order and will result in dismissal of this case.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff has again not 

responded. We thus recommend that the case be dismissed. 

To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet 

those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may 

Case 1:19-cv-00910-AWI-HBK Document 10 Filed 05/15/20 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

dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. 

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our 

sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at 

least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has 

a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 

This recommendation will be submitted to a U.S. district judge presiding over the case 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 30 days of the service of the 

findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and 

recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding

district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C).

ORDER

The clerk of court is ordered to assign the case to a district judge to review the 

recommendation above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:19-cv-00910-AWI-HBK Document 10 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 2