(PC)Figueroa v. Clark ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN FIGUEROA, No. 1:19-cv-00968-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 13 v. DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 14 KENNETH CLARK, et al., PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 86) 16 17 Plaintiff Ruben Figueroa (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Gallagher, Alfaro, Goss, 20 Juarez, Hence, and Llamas for failure to provide outside exercise in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment and against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Goss, Hence, Gallagher, Llamas, and 22 Gamboa for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 23 On December 2, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 80.) 24 Defendants provided notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment to 25 Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 80-1 (citing Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. 26 Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th 27 Cir. 1988).) 28 On January 11, 2023, following the expiration of the deadline for Plaintiff to file his 1 opposition, the assigned Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one days 2 why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (ECF 3 No. 82.) Plaintiff was provided the opportunity to comply with the Court’s order by filing an 4 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff was 5 warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this matter, with 6 prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (Id.) 7 On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and a request for a 30-day 8 extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 9 83.) The Court found good cause to grant the requested extension; discharged the order to show 10 cause; and permitted Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file his opposition. (ECF No. 85.) The 11 Court again warned Plaintiff that failure to file an opposition in compliance with the Court’s order 12 would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Plaintiff did 13 not file an opposition. 14 On February 27, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 15 recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and for failure to 16 obey a court order. (ECF No. 86.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties 17 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. 18 (Id. at 4.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. Plaintiff has not 19 otherwise communicated with the Court regarding this action. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 21 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 22 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 23 analysis. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 27, 2023, (ECF No. 86), are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey 5 acourt order; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close this 7 case. 8 9 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: _ May 30, 2023 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28