Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06003/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Defendant
Darryl Milbry
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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL MILBRY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06003-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Darryl Milbry (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 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 72-302.

On October 25, 2004 the Magistrate Judge concluded that the

complaint must be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge gave notice of

the pleading deficiencies in the complaint. The Magistrate Judge

then granted Plaintiff leave to filed an amended complaint within

thirty days. The October 25, 2004 order was reserved upon

Plaintiff at several addresses.

Case 1:03-cv-06003-AWI -LJO Document 15 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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

On March 31, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended this action be dismissed for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and failure to

prosecute this action. The Findings and Recommendations were

served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to

the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty

(30) days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court adopts the

recommendation that the action be dismissed. No complaint is

currently on file in this action, and this case cannot proceed

with a complaint on file. Further, the original complaint was

properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which the

court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446,

1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of

deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for

failure to state a claim). 

The court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in

which a plaintiff fails to keep an operative complaint on file by

filing an amended complaint. The public’s interest in the

expeditious resolution of litigation weighs heavily in favor of

dismissal of such cases so that the court’s limited resources may

be spent on cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. 

Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits also

has little or no weight in actions where the plaintiff lacks

Case 1:03-cv-06003-AWI -LJO Document 15 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

enough of an interest to file an amended complaint. The public

and the court have no interest in determining the truth or

falsity of the allegations that Plaintiff might raise in an

amended complaint if Plaintiff never files an amended complaint. 

The availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered,

but given that no complaint is on file, the court has no

effective sanction but to close the case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 31, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED for plaintiff’s failure to

comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute the action.

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter Judgment in

accordance with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06003-AWI -LJO Document 15 Filed 06/15/05 Page 3 of 3