Opinion
1:20-cv-01231-NE-EPG (PC)
07-20-2021
MARTIN SAIZ, Plaintiff, v. SENIOR DEP. PUTNAM, et al. Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. NO. 25)
At the time this case was filed, plaintiff Martin Luiz Saiz was a state inmate or pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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.
Plaintiff alleges the underlying actions occurred in Kings County Jail, which is where many pretrial detainees are held. However, plaintiff provided the court both an inmate number at the Kings County Jail and a CDCR inmate number, indicating that he was a sentenced inmate being held at the Kings County Jail. The Court therefore presumes that plaintiff had been convicted. Regardless, the distinction is not material here.
On October 26, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's complaint, concluding that plaintiff stated “cognizable claims against Defendants Putnam and Schrieber for (1) violating his due process rights with respect to housing him in administrative segregation and (2) violating his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for his protected speech” but that plaintiff “faile[ed] to state any other claims.” (Doc. No. 6 at 9-10.) Plaintiff elected to proceed on only those claims that the magistrate judge found cognizable in the screening order. (Doc. No. 7). Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations consistent with the screening order, and, after no objections were filed, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 11, 14.)
After defendants answered the complaint, the magistrate judge ordered the parties to file scheduling and discovery statements. (Doc. No. 19.) The statements were to identify information helpful for discovery and the scheduling of the case, such as the parties' claims and/or defenses, the description and location of documents that may be used at trial, and the names and phone numbers of potential witnesses. (Id.) On March 26, 2021, Defendants filed their scheduling and discovery statement. (Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff did not file his statement by the deadline or request an extension of time to do so.
Accordingly, on April 20, 2021, the magistrate judge sua sponte ordered that plaintiff be granted 21 additional days to file his required statement. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff was warned that, if he again failed to file the required statement by the deadline, “the Court may issue findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge, recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.” (Id. at 1). After the 21-day period for plaintiff to file his statement expired without plaintiff filing a statement or any request for extension of time to file one, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on June 1, 2021, recommending that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute this case along with notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Doc. No. 25 at 3-5.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has since expired.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 1, 2021, (Doc. No. 25), are adopted in full;
2. This case is dismissed, without prejudice, because of plaintiff s failure to comply with a court order and to prosecute this case; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for purposes of closure and to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.