Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Ray Byron Ford v. A. Hedgpeth
February 22, 2012
RAY BYRON FORD,
A. HEDGPETH, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE
GRANTED OBJECTIONS DUE IN TWENTY DAYS
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
By order filed January 4, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause, directing Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause.
In the January 4, 2012, order to show cause, the Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his complaint, and advised Plaintiff that his failure to file a response to the order to show cause would result in a recommendation of dismissal. Because Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing longstanding rule that leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made unless the court determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal with prejudice upheld where court had instructed plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that this action count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For