IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 21, 2012
KAMAL K. ROY, PLAINTIFF,
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, a pro se litigant residing in Saranac Lake, New York, commenced this action by filing with the court a 71-page disorganized and unclear document. Out of an abundance of caution, the Clerk of the Court opened this civil action upon the filing of that documents. On March 30, 2012, the court screened plaintiff's filing but could not tell from the document what plaintiff was attempting to complain about nor could it be determined what relief he sought from the court. Plaintiff had also filed an incomplete application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered plaintiff to file a complaint on the form provided by the Clerk of Court that complied with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice and to submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court also cautioned plaintiff that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
In response to the court's order, plaintiff has filed a 47-page disorganized and unclear document, quite similar to his initial filing in these respects, and another incomplete application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's March 30, 2012 order, and it is now clear that giving him further opportunities to do so would be futile. See, e.g., Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) ("It is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend when any proposed amendment would be futile.").
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that 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 Inc.