Opinion
1:20-cv-01296-NONE-SKO
12-17-2021
COLLEEN M. COURTNEY, Plaintiff, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
(DOC. NO. 17)
On September 11, 2020, plaintiff Colleen M. Courtney, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an action alleging unlawful housing discrimination. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 19, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and provided plaintiff twenty-one days leave to file an amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff was subsequently granted three extensions of time, ultimately until August 18, 2021, to file an amended complaint. (See Doc. Nos. 6, 8, 10.)
On August 16, 2021, plaintiff filed a “Response to First Screening Order.” (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff re-attached her initial complaint, stating she “feels[] that [the screening standard] ha[s] already been met within the instructions provided by the Previous filed Prose [sic] Form, ” and requested that the court “reconsider” the initial complaint. (See id.)
On August 17, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order requiring plaintiff to show cause in writing, within twenty-one days of the date of service of the order, why a recommendation should not issue recommending that this action to be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure comply with the court's screening order by not filing an amended complaint (the “OSC”). (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff was warned in both the screening order and the OSC that her failure to comply with the court's order would result in a recommendation to the assigned district judge that this action be dismissed. (Id. See also Doc. No. 4.)
On September 7, 2021, plaintiff filed a response to the OSC, asserting again that her original complaint satisfied the screening standard. (Doc. No. 13.) On September 13, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge therefore issued an order providing plaintiff with one final opportunity to file an amended complaint, given that a copy of the court's initial screening order had not been mailed to plaintiff as indicated in the OSC. (Doc. No. 14 at 2, 4.) Plaintiff was advised once more that her failure to comply with the court's order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff also requested appointment of counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(b), which request the assigned magistrate judge denied. (See Doc. Nos. 13, 14.)
The screening order was re-served on Plaintiff on September 20, 2021. (See Docket.) On October 7, 2021, plaintiff filed a “response” to the screening order, stating that she had “already answered this Case Screening requirements to the best of her ability.” (Doc. No. 16.)
On September 15, 2021, plaintiff filed a “Final Motion to: [sic] Induce Magistrate Judge Oberto to Make a Fair and Impartical [sic] Judical [sic] Decision Without Personal Prejudical [sic] Objections Hindering the Forward Movement of Case to Be Heard in Court. Stop Obstructioning [sic] Justice to Meet Judge's Personal Unrealisic [sic] Requirements with Constant Interuptions [sic] to Pro Se's Hearing of Enforcement by Private Persons-Puruant [sic] to [U.S.C sec. 3613], ” once again asserting that she had sufficiently stated a claim in her original complaint. (Doc. No. 15.)
Plaintiff also appeared to object to the assigned magistrate judge's denial of her request for appointment of counsel, which the magistrate judge construed as a motion to reconsider plaintiff's request in that regard. (See Doc. Nos. 15, 17.) The motion for reconsideration was denied. (See Doc. No. 17.)
On October 18, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge therefore issued findings and recommendations recommending that this case be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to obey the court's orders and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 17.) The findings and recommendation were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were due within twenty-one days. (See id.)
On October 28, 2021, Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller issued an order of clarification, indicating that no district judge would be available to take action in civil Unassigned/NONE cases until further notice. (Doc. No. 18.) On November 5, 2021, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion re: Order of Clarification, ” in which she advanced a number of requests and arguments. (Doc. No. 19.) On November 23, 2021, the undersigned issued a minute order providing plaintiff with additional time, until December 10, 2021, to file objections to the assigned magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, to the extent plaintiff may have harbored any confusion about the deadline to file objections. (Doc. No. 23.) On December 6, 2021, plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 24.)
On November 5, 2021, plaintiff appealed from the findings and recommendations and that appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Ninth Circuit on December 8, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 20, 25.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs objections, the court finds that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendation issued October 18, 2021 (Doc. No. 17), are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. This action is dismissed with prejudice; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.