(PC) Porter v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LARRY JAMES PORTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
YANG, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00311-JLT-BAM (PC)
ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY
COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 12)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY
COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED
ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Larry James Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 3, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated
cognizable claims against Defendant Jane Doe Sergeant for deliberate indifference to medical
need and conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment and a claim against
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, but failed to state any other cognizable claims for relief against

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
any other defendant. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint
curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order or to notify the Court of his
willingness to proceed only on his claims against Defendants Jane Doe Sergeant and CDCR,
within thirty days. (Id.) Following Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the November 3, 2025
screening order, on December 15, 2025, the Court issued findings and recommendations to
dismiss this action, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.
(ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was directed to file any objections to the findings and recommendations
within fourteen (14) days. (Id.)
On January 5, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file
his objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff was directed to file
any objections within thirty (30) days. (Id.)
On January 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed his objections to the findings and recommendations.
(ECF No. 16.) In his objections, Plaintiff states that he is currently incarcerated and does not
have access to the internet. He is 68-years old, has been incarcerated for the last 44 years, and
has not had access to digital technology over 90% of those years. Plaintiff claims that he never
received the digitally prepared order that he should amend his position. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff
requests that the Court reverse dismissal of his civil action and allow him “to have the full (30)
days granted on this Court’s (undelivered) decision to Plaintiff, thus Plaintiff can cure the
deficiencies identified in the (undelivered) Court’s screening order.” (Id. at 2.)
Having considered Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds it appropriate to vacate the
pending findings and recommendations and to grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file a first
amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s November 3, 2025 screening
order or to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his claims against Defendants
Jane Doe Sergeant and CDCR. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that an extension of
thirty days is appropriate.
If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, any such amended complaint should be
brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the
deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citations omitted).
Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated
claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no
“buckshot” complaints).
Any amended complaint is limited to 20 pages in length, excluding exhibits.
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.
Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended
complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.”
Local Rule 220.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 15, 2025, (ECF No. 12),
are VACATED;
2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff:
a. A complaint form;
b. A copy of the Court’s November 3, 2025 screening order, (ECF No. 10);
3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:
a. File an amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in
the November 3, 2025 screening order; or
b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint
and he is willing to proceed only on his claims against Defendant Jane Doe
Sergeant for deliberate indifference to medical need and conditions of
confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment and a claim against
California Department Corrections and Rehabilitation for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act; and
c. Any amended complaint is limited to 20 pages in length, excluding exhibits.
///

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, then the Court will recommend dismissal
of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to
prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE