Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05168/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05168-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAVIER MIRO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05168-AWI-YNP PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Michael J. Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is currently pending the

filing of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which was due within 30 days of the date of service

of the Court’s June 17, 2009 order granting Plaintiff an extension of time. Plaintiff has not filed his

second amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2004. (Doc. #16.) On

August 13, 2007, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. #19.) Plaintiff’s first

amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On January 25, 2008, a

findings and recommendations issued recommending that this action be dismissed becausePlaintiff’s

first amended complaint failed to state any claims and Plaintiff had not filed a second amended

complaint. (Doc. #20.) The findings and recommendations was adopted on February 26, 2008. 

(Doc. #22.) Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on March 13, 2008. (Doc. #24.) Plaintiff

argued that he filed objections to the findings and recommendations that was not addressed by the

Court. Plaintiff’s objections stated that he did not file a second amended complaint because he did

1

Case 1:04-cv-05168-AWI-SKO Document 31 Filed 03/18/10 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

not receive the Court’s August 13, 2007 order dismissing his first amended complaint. On March

25, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and re-opened this action. (Doc. #25.) The Court

granted Plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint.

On May 13, 2009, Plaintiff requested a 60 day extension of time to file his second amended

complaint. (Doc. #26.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on May 15, 2009, but only gave

Plaintiff a 30 day extension. (Doc. #27.) On June 15, 2009, Plaintiff requested an additional 30 day

extension of time. (Doc. #29.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s second request on June 17, 2009. 

(Doc. #30.) Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was due within thirty days of the date of service

of the June 17, 2009 order. Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint.

Plaintiff has been given notice of the deficiencies in his claims and an opportunity to file an

amended complaint. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigant should

be given notice of the deficiencies in his complaint and leave to amend prior to dismissing for failure

to state a claim). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. The Court recommends dismissal

of the claims made in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

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)(1). Within thirty 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:04-cv-05168-AWI-SKO Document 31 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2