Abernathy

(PC) Watts v. Abernathy

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 30, 20202:19-cv-00715California522 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VERNELL WATTS, No. 2:19-CV-0715-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. ABERNATHY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 10, 2019, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended 19 complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint may 20 result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and 21 orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has not complied despite having been granted five 22 extension of time to do so. 23 The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 24 See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 25 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 26 expeditious…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.