From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Mule Creek State Prison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2022
2:21-cv-01122 DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01122 DB P

11-22-2022

ELIJAH LEE MILLER, Plaintiff, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DEBORAH BARNES, UNTIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated February 8, 2022, the court found plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 11.) The court dismissed the complaint and granted plaintiff thirty-days leave to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, request an extension of time, or otherwise respond to the court's order within thirty days. On May 24, 2022, the court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint or show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders within 30 days of the date of this order. (ECF No. 14.) A thirty-day deadline was set for plaintiff to respond. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to abide by the court's order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.)

More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not shown cause why this action should not be dismissed, filed an amended complaint, requested an extension of time, or otherwise responded to the court's orders. Accordingly, 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).


Summaries of

Miller v. Mule Creek State Prison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2022
2:21-cv-01122 DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)
Case details for

Miller v. Mule Creek State Prison

Case Details

Full title:ELIJAH LEE MILLER, Plaintiff, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 22, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-01122 DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)