Opinion
3:21-CV-5571-BHS-DWC
12-14-2021
STEVEN MB WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. JASON F. WALKER, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge
The District Court has referred this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff Steven M.B. Williams, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . On October 20, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff's proposed complaint and found it was deficient. Dkt. 6. The Court determined Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted because Plaintiff's proposed complaint contains claims that arise under habeas corpus and were potentially inappropriate under the Younger abstention doctrine. Id. The Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed by November 19, 2021. Id. In the Order to Show Cause (“Order”), the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to adequately respond to the Order would result in the Court recommending dismissal of this action. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Order. He has not filed a response to the Order and, as discussed in the Order, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the proposed complaint. See Dkt. 6. Therefore, the Court recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to follow a Court order and failure to provide a servable complaint that states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court also recommends Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 5) be denied as moot.
As Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in the proposed complaint, the Court finds this case should be considered a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on December 31, 2021, as noted in the caption.