(PC) Blackgold v. CDCR ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUTEN BLACKGOLD, A.K.A. No. 1:22-cv-00930 GSA (PC) MITCHELL QUINTIN GRADY 12 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 14 ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS CDCR, et al., ACTION 15 Defendants. ORDER RECOMMENDING THAT THESE 16 MATTERS BE RELATED PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 123(a)(3) 17 ORDER RECOMMENDING MATTER BE 18 DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 19 (ECF No. 11) 20 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE MARCH 21 14, 2024 22 23 SUTEN BLACKGOLD, A.K.A. No. 1:23-cv-00782 GSA (PC) MITCHELL QUINTIN GRADY 24 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS 25 v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 26 ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS HARMON, ACTION 27 28 1 Defendant. 2 ORDER RECOMMENDING THAT THESE MATTERS BE RELATED PURSUANT TO 3 LOCAL RULE 123(a)(3) 4 ORDER RECOMMENDING MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY 5 COURT ORDER 6 (ECF No. 9) 7 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE MARCH 14, 2024 8 9 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed the above- 10 referenced civil rights actions1 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 11 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 12 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that these matters be 13 related. In addition, it will be recommended that these matters be dismissed for failure to obey 14 court orders. 15 I. RELEVANT FACTS 16 On January 22, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his in forma pauperis 17 status should not be revoked in both matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See CDCR, ECF 18 No. 11; see also Harmon, ECF No. 9. At that time Plaintiff was given thirty days to file in both 19 cases showings of cause. In the alternative, Plaintiff was also given the option of paying the 20 filing fees in full within the same period. See CDCR, ECF No. 11 at 7-8; Harmon, ECF No. 9 at 21 7-8. 22 More than thirty days has now passed and Plaintiff has not filed his showings of cause, 23 nor he paid the filing fees in full in either case. Additionally, Plaintiff has not responded to the 24 respective Court’s orders in any other way. 25 I. DISCUSSION 26 27 1 For ease of reference, throughout this order, Blackgold v. CDCR, No. 1:22-cv-00930 GSA will be referred to as “CDCR,” and Blackgold v. CDCR, No. 1:23-cv-00782 GSA will be referred to 28 as “Harmon.” 1 A. Relation of Cases 2 These two matters deal with similar questions of fact – i.e., whether the same previously 3 adjudicated cases constitute strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). They also deal 4 with the same question of law – i.e., whether Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be 5 revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Therefore, the undersigned finds that an order relating 6 the two matters pursuant to Local Rule 123(a)(3) is appropriate, and it will be recommended that 7 they are. 8 B. Dismissal of Matter 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits this Court to dismiss a matter if a plaintiff fails 10 to comply with federal rules and/or he fails to obey a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 11 Local Rule 110 also permits the imposition of sanctions when a party fails to comply with an 12 order of this Court. See id. 13 Plaintiff has been given adequate time to comply with the Court’s order to file a showing 14 of cause or, in the alternative, to pay the filing fees in these matters in full. Plaintiff has done 15 neither, nor has he requested an extension of time to do so in either matter. For these reasons, the 16 undersigned will also recommend that this matter be dismissed. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 18 District Judge to these matters. 19 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 20 1. These cases, Blackgold v. CDCR, No. 1:22-cv-00930 GSA, and Blackgold v. CDCR, 21 No. 1:23-cv-00782 GSA, be RELATED pursuant to Local Rule 123(a)(3), and 22 2. These matters be DISMISSED for failure to obey court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 41(b); Local Rule 110. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations – by March 14, 2024, – Plaintiff 27 may file written objections with the Court. Such documents should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 1 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 2 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: February 29, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28