(PC) Jones v. Placer County Sheriff's Office ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LLOYD DYLAN JONES, Case No. 2:19-cv-00342-MCE-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 14 PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 15 DAYS Defendants. 16 17 On September 28, 2020, the court informed plaintiff that he could proceed on the fourth 18 amended complaint’s viable Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants 19 Gualco and Tredinnick and Eighth Amendment claim against defendant County of Placer. ECF 20 No. 28. All other claims were dismissed with leave to amend. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff was ordered to 21 file, within thirty days, a notice of election advising the court whether he elects to proceed with 22 the viable claims or file an amended complaint. Id. at 7-8. After plaintiff failed to comply with 23 that order, he was ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 24 prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders. 25 In response, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. ECF No. 31. That motion 26 was granted, the order to show cause was discharged, and plaintiff was ordered to file a fifth 27 amended complaint by January 18, 2021. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff, however, never filed a fifth 28 1 amended complaint. Accordingly, on February 18, 2021 order, he was ordered to show cause, 2 | within twenty-one days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure prosecute and failure 3 | to comply with the court’s order requiring him to file a fifth amended complaint. Plaintiff was 4 | notified that if he wished to continue with this lawsuit, he must file an amended complaint. He 5 | was also warned that failure to comply with the February 18 order would result in a 6 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. 7 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor otherwise 8 || responded to the February 18, 2021 order. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court 10 | orders. 11 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 15 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 16 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 17 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 18 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 19 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 20 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ( q oy — Dated: _ April 22, 2021 24 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28