Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00433/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00433-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Austin Gollihar
Plaintiff
San Joaquin County Jail
Defendant

Document Text:

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

AUSTIN GOLLIHAR, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0433 LKK EFB P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL,

et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 14, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s amended

complaint for failure to name individual defendants allegedly responsible for violating his

constitutional rights, and directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. The court

cautioned plaintiff that failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with that order

would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

On November 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. In his complaint,

plaintiff is able to approximate dates and provide descriptions of the actions he alleges violated

his constitutional rights, but he again fails to name individual defendants, stating “[t]he San

Joaquin County Jail will not return letters with info on defendants names, dates, excetra [sic].” 

Despite three opportunities to do so, plaintiff has failed to file a cognizable complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-00433-LKK -EFB Document 38 Filed 02/12/08 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s second amended

complaint be dismissed, without further leave to amend, for failure to identify defendants, and

that the Clerk of the Court 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 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.” 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: February 11, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00433-LKK -EFB Document 38 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2