Goodwin v. Yamada ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUCHUN LAFRE GOODWIN, No. 1:23-cv-0345 JLT EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 MICHAEL M. YAMADA, (Doc. 7) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Duchun Lafre Goodwin, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, asserts he suffered 18 violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. (See Doc. 1 at 4.) The 19 magistrate judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and found Plaintiff failed 20 to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 4 at 3-6) The magistrate judge granted Plaintiff leave to amend 21 the complaint. (Id. at 6.) In the alternative, the Court informed Plaintiff that he “may choose to 22 stand on the complaint,” in which case the magistrate judge would recommend dismissal. (Id.) 23 Plaintiff was granted 30 days from the date of service to either file amended complaint or notify 24 the Court he would stand on the initial complaint. (Id. at 7.) However, the Court’s order was 25 returned as undeliverable on April 4, 2023. 26 Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to serve the complaint, which was denied on 27 April 14, 2023. (Docs. 5, 6.) Addressing the motion for an extension of time, the magistrate 28 judge directed the Clerk of Court to also serve a copy of the screening order. (Doc. 6 at 2.) 1 However, Plaintiff did not respond to the screening order after it was re-served. 2 On May 23, 2023, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action by 3 not responding to the screening order, and recommended the action be dismissed without 4 prejudice. (Doc. 7.) The Findings and Recommendations were served upon Plaintiff the same 5 day and it notified him that any objections must be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 4.) In 6 addition, the Court informed him that the failure to file timely objections “may result in the 7 waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 8 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) 9 The day after the Court served the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff filed the first 10 page of the Court’s complaint form, with only the case number completed (Doc. 8). The 11 following week, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate several cases pending before the Court 12 (Doc. 9) and a motion to set aside default judgment (Doc. 10). Importantly, these filings do not 13 address Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the screening order— by filing an amended 14 complaint or choosing to stand on his initial complaint—and do not address the determination 15 that he did not state a cognizable claim. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Findings 16 and Recommendations. 17 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 18 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 19 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Although Plaintiff has filed 20 additional documents in this action, he did not take any action in response to the Court’s order 21 directing him to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies of his complaint. In that 22 manner, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his claims in this action. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 23 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 23, 2023 (Doc. 7) are 24 ADOPTED IN FULL. 25 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 26 3. Plaintiff’s motions to consolidate and set aside a default judgment (Docs. 9, 10) 27 are terminated as MOOT. 28 /// 1 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4| Dated: _ June 19, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28