Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03117/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03117-2/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

BRANDON LEIGH MEFFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BHUTIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-3117-EFB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On August 6, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 11. The court dismissed the complaint, explained the deficiencies therein,

and granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. 

Id. The screening order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed. The time for acting has now passed and despite being granted a 

lengthy extension of time, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to 

the order. Thus, it appears that plaintiff is unable or unwilling to cure the defects in the complaint.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United 

States District Judge to this case. 

Case 2:18-cv-03117-JAM-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/14/20 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

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for the 

reasons set forth in the August 6, 2019 screening order (ECF No. 11).

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, any party 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 13, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-03117-JAM-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2