Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02795/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02795-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Home Box Office
Defendant
Derrick Neal Robinson
Plaintiff

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

1

 This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK NEAL ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2795 MCE EFB PS

vs.

HOME BOX OFFICE,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, by order of this court dated March 2, 2007.1

 The court has

dismissed with leave to amend both the original and amended complaints for failure to state a

claim for which relief may be granted, and for plaintiff’s failure to allege a jurisdictional basis

for this action. On March 28, 2007, plaintiff filed a document, which the court will construe as a

second amended complaint. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if

it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

Case 2:06-cv-02795-MCE -EFB Document 10 Filed 05/22/07 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

2

defendant.

The second amended complaint again fails state a cognizable claim for which relief may

be granted. By order dated January 10, 2007, the court advised plaintiff of the deficiencies in the

originally lodged complaint. Specifically, the court informed plaintiff that the complaint failed

to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), that no jurisdictional basis was apparent from the complaint,

and that the complaint failed to set forth any discernible cause of action or demand for relief. 

The amended complaint suffered from these same deficiencies, as explained in this court’s

March 2, 2007, order. The second amended complaint fails to cure any of these deficiencies. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 

1. This action be dismissed; and

2. The Clerk 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

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 (10) 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, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 21, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02795-MCE -EFB Document 10 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 2