Mohammad v. State of Oregon et al

Page 1 – FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
LIETH MOHAMMAD, 	Case No. 2:22-cv-01191-JR
Plaintiff, 	FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATION
v.
STATE OF OREGON; OFFICER MAIN;
OFFICER MICHAEL PAYNE; OFFICER
JEFFREY LANDE; OFFICER JOE
ARRITOLA; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
__________________________
RUSSO, Magistrate Judge:
Pro se plaintiff, Lieth Mohammad, a former inmate at Two Rivers Correctional Institution
in Umatilla, Oregon, brings this action asserting claims for violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights and a state law claim for battery. On October 10, 2023, the Court stayed this action pending
State court criminal proceedings against plaintiff.
On September 3, 2025, the Court granted plaintiff's counsel’s request to withdraw from the
case. In addition, the Court directed plaintiff to advise the Court in writing, by October 14, 2025,
as to his efforts to obtain new counsel or to otherwise advise the Court of his intent to proceed pro
se. (ECF 50). Plaintiff has not responded to the Order.
Case 2:22-cv-01191-JR Document 55 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 – FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
On October 27, 2025, defendants filed a status report and moved to dismiss this action
unless plaintiff appears in person and indicates whether he has obtained counsel or intends to
proceed pro se. (ECF 52 (citing L.R. 83-11). Accordingly, on October 27, 2025, the Court ordered
plaintiff to show cause, by November 10, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed for failure
to prosecute and failure to follow a Court Order. To date, plaintiff has not responded. Accordingly,
this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow a Court Order.
CONCLUSION
This action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow Court Order.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court
of appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The parties shall
have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to
file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days
within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual
determination of the Magistrate Judge will be considered as a waiver of a party's right to de novo
consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review
of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to this recommendation.
DATED this 21st day of November, 2025.
_____________________________
Jolie A. Russo
United States Magistrate Judge
/s/ Jolie A. Russo
Case 2:22-cv-01191-JR Document 55 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 2