Richard Harold Landis v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD HAROLD LANDIS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01490-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

13 v. FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,

15 et al., 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Richard Harold Landis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On September 2, 2025, the Court ordered that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s first 20 amended complaint against Defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, correctional officers, for 21 failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 20.) However, on September 22 3, 2025, the Court found that service was not appropriate for Defendants John Doe 1 and John 23 Doe 2 because the U.S. Marshal could not serve a Doe Defendant. The Court indicated that 24 before it ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the Doe Defendants, Plaintiff would be…