Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01849/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01849-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Lopez
Defendant
Glenn Tilson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

GLENN TILSON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. LOPEZ,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-01849 LJO GSA PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED

OBJECTIONS DUE IN TWENTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement 

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

By order filed May 27, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing the operative 

complaint for failure to state a claim and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 

thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

In the May 27, 2015, the Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his complaint, 

and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which 

relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the Court 

dismisses the claims made in the original complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim 

Case 1:14-cv-01849-LJO-GSA Document 17 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 2
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

upon which the Court could grant relief. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 

2007)(recognizing longstanding rule that leave to amend should be granted even if no request 

to amend was made unless the court determines that the pleading could not possible be cured 

by the allegation of other facts); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)(pro se 

litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the 

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 

F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal with prejudice upheld where court had instructed 

plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend).

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

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that this action count as a strike 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

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)(B). Within twenty 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 

772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1394(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01849-LJO-GSA Document 17 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2