Opinion
2:22-cv-01949 DB P
03-29-2023
THERON KENNETH HOLSTON, Plaintiff, v. MARIO CRUZ, Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBOFAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff initially filed a complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis in conjunction with a motion to seal these documents and a request to proceed under a pseudonym on October 27, 2022. (ECF Nos. 1-3.) The court denied plaintiff's request to proceed under a pseudonym and motion to seal on November 2, 2022. (ECF No. 5.) The court struck plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) and directed plaintiff to file a new complaint within thirty days. (Id. at 4.)
Thirty days have passed. Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, request an extension of time to do so, or otherwise respond to the court's order within thirty days. As such, there is no operative complaint in this action. Plaintiff was warned that failure to abide by the court's order and file a complaint in this action would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.)
As there is no operative complaint in this action and plaintiff has failed to file a complaint as ordered, it will be recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute.
For the reasons state above, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to randomly assign a district judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
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). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).