(PC) Doss v. Mule Creek State Prison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT L. DOSS, No. 2:24-cv-1092 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed March 14, 2025, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed, and thirty days leave to file a second amended complaint was granted. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file a second amended complaint may result in the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 8.) On March 31, 2025, plaintiff filed the notice of amendment form, but no second amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) On April 9, 2025, plaintiff was informed of the omission, and he was granted an additional fourteen days in which to file the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file the proposed second amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id. at 1.)

25 On April 21, 2025, plaintiff filed a copy of his previously submitted notice of amendment form, objecting that he sent the second amendment to the Clerk’s office on March 22. (ECF No. 17.)

27 On April 23, 2025, the Clerk of the Court informed plaintiff that the Court received his notice, but no second amended complaint was filed. (Id.) ] More than a month and a half have passed since plaintiff was first ordered to file his || second amended complaint. Over fourteen days have passed since the Court granted plaintiff an || extension of time to file his second amended complaint. Although plaintiff filed the notice of | amendment form, plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint. Plaintiff previously filed || the notice of amendment form with his first amended complaint (ECF No. 12), so plaintiff is || aware of the difference between the notice of amendment form and an amended complaint.

7 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is | directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 9 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule | 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

11 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)(1). 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. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 | (9th Cir. 1991).

18 || Dated: 05/01/25 Cc (i $ □□ 19 CHI SOO KIM 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || //doss1092.fta.ext