(PC) Overton v. California Health Care Facility

Opinion

MICHAEL L. OVERTON, No. 2:20-cv-0854 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FACILITY, Defendant. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges large sums of money are owed to him. By order dated May 5, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. By order dated October 13, 2020, plaintiff was again ordered to pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was given thirty days leave to do so and warned that failure to comply with the court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed1 a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. Accordingly, the 1 Plaintiff has not submitted any filings related to the filing fee or an in forma pauperis application. However, plaintiff has submitted two filings containing inmate grievance forms regarding a missing canteen purchase (ECF No. 13) and his request for a parole hearing date (ECF No. 14). undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to randomly assign this action to a district judge. 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)(). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 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 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: December 9, 2020

U7 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE pB:2 53 DB: 1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil Rights/over0854.f&r.dism