The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are Plaintiff's objections to the undersigned's findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Following the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding this action back to this court, the undersigned issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 60 days of that October 13, 2009, order. Plaintiff now states he did not receive that order. As such, the court will provide Plaintiff another opportunity to file an amended complaint identifying the Doe defendants. The Clerk of the Court will also be directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the court's October 13, 2009, order.
Plaintiff is again cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint within the time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; see also Local Rule 11-110. Plaintiff is further warned that a complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8 may, in the court's discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The April 22, 2010, findings and recommendations are vacated;
2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order, identifying the county transportation deputy sheriffs, identified in his amended complaint as TDS I and TDS II; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve Plaintiff with another copy of the court's October 13, 2009, order (Doc. 59).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...