Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03266/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03266-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARD KAMILCHU,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S,

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-3266 DB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate jurisdiction. (ECF No. 

4.) Plaintiff claims his rights were violated in connection with a 2010 driving under the influence 

(“DUI”) arrest and related court proceedings. 

By order dated November 4, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and dismissed with 

thirty days leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) Thirty days from that date have 

now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the 

court’s order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 

assign a district judge to this action.

////

////

////

Case 2:18-cv-03266-TLN-DB Document 17 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 2
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

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)(l). 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: February 3, 2020

DLB:12

DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/kami3266.f&r.fta

Case 2:18-cv-03266-TLN-DB Document 17 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2