Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00345/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00345-3/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 

MICHAEL E. JACQUES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-0345 TLN AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On September 23, 2024, the court screened the complaint and found that plaintiff 

had stated cognizable Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Franceschi 

and Lynch in their individual capacities and against Lynch in his official capacity, but that her 

claims against Franceschi in her official capacity and all claims against Macomber were 

insufficient to proceed. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff was given the options of amending the complaint 

or proceeding immediately on her cognizable claims against defendants Franceschi and Lynch. 

Id. at 9-10. She was further advised that if she failed to notify the court how she wanted to 

proceed, the court would assume that she was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened. 

Id. at 10. The time for plaintiff to notify the court as to how she wishes to proceed has now 

passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or otherwise responded to the order. 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-00345-TLN-AC Document 14 Filed 12/05/24 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 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that for the reasons set forth in the September 23, 

2024 Screening Order (ECF No. 10 at 4-6), the official capacity claims against defendant 

Franceschi and all claims against defendant Macomber be dismissed without prejudice. 

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 twenty-one days 

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

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges 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: December 4, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-00345-TLN-AC Document 14 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 2