(PC) Leonard v. Coalinga State Hospital

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 27, 2020
• Docket: 1:18-cv-01049
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 HARVEY MACK LEONARD, 1:18-cv-01049-DAD-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 13 vs. DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 14 COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, et al., COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. FOURTEEN- DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 16 OBJECTIONS

17 18 Harvey Mack Leonard (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee1 at Coalinga State Hospital in 19 Coalinga, California, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 21 action. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On May 24, 2019, the court screened the Complaint and issued an order requiring Plaintiff 23 to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with his 24 excessive force claim against defendant Barrett found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 7.) On 25 June 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9.) 26

27 1 Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil 28 detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 On February 10, 2020, the court screened the First Amended Complaint and issued an 2 order requiring Plaintiff, within thirty days, to either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify 3 the court of his willingness to proceed only with his excessive force, assault and battery claims 4 against defendants Barrett and Gardenhire found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 12.) The 5 thirty-day deadline has now expired and Plaintiff has neither filed a Second Amended Complaint 6 or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this case be DISMISSED, without prejudice, 9 based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute; and 10 2. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 13 (14) days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 14 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 15 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 16 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 17 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 18 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: March 27, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24 25 26 27 28