Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. California Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 9, 2009

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action who has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff moves for entry of final judgment following the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of plaintiff's appeal, on October 22, 2009, for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal challenged the undersigned's August 10, 2009 order affirming this court's June 22, 2009 dismissal of plaintiff's initial complaint with leave to amend. Finding that plaintiff had presented neither new facts nor new controlling authority, the court affirmed its prior detailed ruling that plaintiff's complaint improperly set forth several unrelated claims against multiple defendants.

Plaintiff now "request[s] that the Court enter final judgment in this matter in order to permit jurisdiction by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." Doc. 16, at 1. He asserts that the court's June 22, 2009 screening of his complaint was "erroneous and contrary to law," and the court's August 10, 2009 order on reconsideration "an abuse of discretion requiring appellate review because no District Judge is being allowed to review the Magistrate Judge's findings and order(s)." Id., at 1-2.

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and the time for doing so has passed. He was initially granted thirty days from the date of service of the court's June 22, 2009 order within which to file an amended complaint, but instead sought reconsideration. Plaintiff was again granted thirty days within which to file an amended complaint pursuant to the court's August 10, 2009 order on reconsideration, but instead pursued an appeal. It is clear that plaintiff seeks to rest on his original complaint. His failure to file an amended complaint, consistent with the orders of this court, requires that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be dismissed with prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment consistent with this order.

20091209

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.