(PC) Hill v. Rios ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:18-cv-3089 MCE AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the undersigned 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before the court are plaintiff’s objections to the undersigned’s September 30, 2019 21 recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to amend. See ECF Nos. 21, 22. For the 22 reasons stated below, the court will vacate its recommendation and grant plaintiff a final 23 opportunity to file an amended complaint. 24 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 On August 12, 2019, the court issued a screening order directing plaintiff to file an 26 amended complaint within thirty days. ECF No. 16. Thereafter, instead of complying with the 27 court’s order, plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify a judge in another matter, Hill v. Rios, No. 28 //// 1 2:18-cv-3224 EFB (“Rios”), and he also filed objections to the court’s denial of that motion. See 2 ECF Nos. 17, 20. 3 As a result of plaintiff’s failure to file an amended petition, the undersigned recommended 4 that this action be dismissed for failure to amend. See ECF No. 21. In response, plaintiff filed 5 objections on October 21, 2019 (see ECF No. 22) which the court now considers. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 In plaintiff’s objections, he argues that this action should not be dismissed because he 8 intended to file an amended complaint in this case, but instead, he may have mistakenly filed it 9 the Rios case. See ECF No. 22 at 1-3. Plaintiff asks the court to check the docket in Rios for his 10 amended complaint. See id. at 2-3. In the alternative, plaintiff asks the court to issue an order 11 granting him another opportunity to file the amended complaint. See id. 12 The court takes judicial notice of Hill v. Rios, No. 2:18-cv-3224 EFB and the documents 13 filed therein. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating court 14 may take judicial notice of its own records); see, e.g., Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 15 U.S. 147, 156-57 (1969) (taking judicial notice of opinion of related case). A cursory review of 16 the docket in Rios indicates that plaintiff has filed multiple amended complaints therein, at least 17 one of which appears to relate to the instant action. See, e.g., Rios, ECF No. 14. However, that 18 amended complaint was filed on July 28, 20191 (see id. at 6), a date which precedes this court’s 19 August 12, 2019 order to amend. 20 It is not the court’s responsibility to ensure that a plaintiff who is litigating multiple 21 actions has his amended pleadings filed in the correct case. However, in the interests of fairness 22 and in light of plaintiff’s alleged status as a civil detainee with mental health and/or disability 23 issues (see generally ECF No. 1 at 3-4), the court will vacate the outstanding findings and 24 //// 25 26 1 Plaintiff signed the amended complaint on July 28, 2019. See Rios, ECF No. 14 at 6. The court presumes that plaintiff delivered the document to prison officials at that time. An 27 incarcerated individual’s pro se filing is deemed filed at the moment of delivery to prison officials. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th 28 Cir 2009). 1 || recommendations and grant plaintiff a final thirty-day period within which to file a first amended 2 | complaint. 3 Plaintiff is cautioned that he must take care to file documents in the correct cases, using 4 | the correct case numbers. Absent exigent circumstances, no further extensions of time will be 5 || granted. Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely respond to this order may result in a 6 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 30, 2019 (ECF No. 21), are 9 | VACATED, and 10 2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a first amended 11 || complaint which complies with the court’s August 12, 2019 screening order. See ECF No. 16. 12 | DATED: October 25, 2019 ~ 13 Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28