Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00487/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00487-3/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

DANIEL JOSEPH YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-0487 DB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. On screening plaintiff’s complaint, this court found plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claims against defendants Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell for excessive force and a 

cognizable Eighth Amendment medical claim against defendant Giardino. (Apr. 28, 2022 Order 

(ECF No. 5).) This court further found plaintiff failed to state any other claims. Plaintiff was 

given the choice of proceeding on her cognizable claims or amending her complaint.

On May 31, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On screening, this court again 

found that plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Giardino, 

Sotelo, and Bell for excessive force and an Eighth Amendment medical claim against Giardino. 

In addition, this court found plaintiff stated First Amendment retaliation claims against Giardino, 

Sotelo, and Bell. (July 6, 2022 Order (ECF No. 10).) Finally, this court found plaintiff failed to 

state claims against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff was again given the option of proceeding 

Case 2:22-cv-00487-KJM-DB Document 12 Filed 08/31/22 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

on the cognizable claims or amending the first amended complaint. To inform the court of her 

choice, plaintiff was provided a form to fill out and return to the court within thirty days. 

Thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not informed the court how she wishes to 

proceed, has not filed a second amended complaint, and has not otherwise responded to the 

court’s July 6 order. Plaintiff was warned that if she failed to comply with the July 6 order, this 

court may recommend this action be dismissed. Local Rule 110 and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41 provide that a court may dismiss a case where a plaintiff fails to prosecute, comply 

with the rules, or comply with a court order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and comply with 

this court’s order. 

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district 

judge to this case; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 

the court. The 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 result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 30, 2022

DLB:9

DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/youn0487.fta fr

Case 2:22-cv-00487-KJM-DB Document 12 Filed 08/31/22 Page 2 of 2