Mungia v. Sheriffe Dep't

Full title: ISAAC MUNGIA, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFFE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 8, 2021

2:21-cv-1641 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-1641 JAM KJN P

12-08-2021

ISAAC MUNGIA, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFFE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant.

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, 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 302.

On September 22, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to provide a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the six -month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff did not comply with the court order or otherwise respond.

On November 12, 2021, the undersigned filed findings and recommendations which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On November 29, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff claims that he received the court's “letter, ” is “on it now, ” and that he was waiting for his housing facility to work with his requests. (ECF No. 7.)

Plaintiff is cautioned that even though he is proceeding without counsel, he must diligently prosecute his action and timely comply with court orders. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Id. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19--operates as an adjudication on the merits.

Id. If plaintiff is unable to timely comply with an order, plaintiff should file a motion for extension of time in which to do so, preferably before the deadline expires.

The findings and recommendations are vacated, and plaintiff is granted an additional thirty days in which to comply with the September 22, 2021 order. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The November 12, 2021 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 6) are vacated.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days in which to comply with the September 22, 2021 order (ECF No. 4); failure to timely comply will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner.