Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01550/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01550-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Butte
Defendant
TJ Grundy
Defendant
Jason Shawn Hughes
Plaintiff
Desiree Vance
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JASON SHAWN HUGHES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DESIREE VANCE, TJ GRUNDY, and 

COUNTY OF BUTTE, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1550-KJM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 

Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 On March 31, 2015, the court screened plaintiff’s original complaint. The complaint was 

dismissed with leave to amend. ECF No. 13. That order informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in 

his complaint and directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Id. The 

court also warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed. Id. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an 

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.1

 

 1

 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 

was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 

address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 

the party is fully effective. 

Case 2:14-cv-01550-KJM-EFB Document 16 Filed 06/02/15 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

 A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or 

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in 

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended 

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 

regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to 

state a claim and for failure to prosecute. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. 

Local Rule 110. 

 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 fourteen 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 response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: June 2, 2015. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01550-KJM-EFB Document 16 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 2