Guardado v. Dzurenda

Opinion

5 * * *

6 Ernest Guardado, Case No. 2:20-cv-01923-ART-DJA

7 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 v.

9 James Dzurenda, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 This matter is before the Court on its order to show cause. (ECF No. 39). The Court 13 granted Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel on March 16, 2023. (ECF No. 32). In that 14 order, the Court found that Plaintiff had demonstrated exceptional circumstances because he was 15 residing at the Wells Conservation Camp, which is rurally located and lacks a law library. 16 Plaintiff later updated his address, which address indicated that Plaintiff was no longer in custody. 17 The Court thus ordered Plaintiff to file a status report indicating whether he still wished 18 the Court to appoint counsel and, if so, how his current situation constituted exceptional 19 circumstances. (ECF No. 37). Plaintiff did not meet the Court’s December 6, 2023 deadline to 20 file that status report. On March 13, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the 21 Court should not recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s case for his failure to follow the Court’s 22 order to file a status report regarding the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 39). The Court 23 informed Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that 24 this case be dismissed,” and gave Plaintiff until April 11, 2024 to respond. (Id.). Plaintiff did not 25 respond and, to date, has not filed anything further in this case. 26 27 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed. The Clerk 2 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 3 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within (14) days after service of this Notice. The 4 Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived 5 due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 6 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable 7 issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the 8 order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi 9 Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 10

11 DATED: April 23, 2024 12

13 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27