Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01412/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01412-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MANJEET SINGH,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN PHEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01412-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY 

WITH A COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 29).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO 

RESPOND TO THE SCREENING ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK’S OFFICE 

TO ATTACH A COPY OF THE COURT’S 

SCREENING ORDER TO THIS ORDER 

Michael Manjeet Singh (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 9).

1

On November 2, 2022, Plaintiff’s case was transferred to this Court from the Northern 

District of California. (ECF No. 19). On April 3, 2023, the Court issued a screening order, 

ordering Plaintiff to file, within thirty days, either an (1) amended complaint or; (2) notice that he 

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a duplicate copy of his original complaint on August 4, 2022, which was 

docketed as “Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 15).

Case 1:22-cv-01412-KES-EPG Document 31 Filed 06/28/23 Page 1 of 3
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

wished to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the Court’s screening order or; (3) 

notice that he wished to stand on his complaint. (ECF No. 28). On May 23, 2023, the Court 

entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order after Plaintiff failed to timely 

respond to the Court’s screening order. (ECF No. 29). 

On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed timely objections which state that Plaintiff believed that he 

had filed for an extension to respond to the screening order and that his request has been granted. 

(ECF No. 30, pp. 1-3). As Plaintiff explains, the extension request was actually filed in Singh v. 

Pheiffer, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01446-JLT-GSA (PC) (“Singh II”) and granted by Magistrate 

Judge Gary S. Austin. (Id.) It appears that Plaintiff was unaware that he had initiated a second 

action, Singh II, which asserts duplicate claims as the ones asserted in this action.2See Singh II, 

2023 WL 4162907, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2023) (“Findings and Recommendations, 

Recommending That This Case Be Dismissed as Duplicative of Case 1:22-cv-001412-ADA-EPG 

(PC)”). Thus, when Plaintiff received an “Order of Reassignment” issued in Singh II shortly after 

receiving the Court’s screening order in this case, Plaintiff believed that this case had been 

reassigned with a new case number and filed his request for an extension accordingly. (ECF No. 

30, pp. 1-2). 

After reviewing Plaintiff’s objections, it appears that Plaintiff made a good faith effort to 

comply with the Court’s screening order. Accordingly, the Court will vacate the findings and 

recommendations issued on May 23, 2023. (ECF No. 29). Further, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s 

request for a sixty-day extension to respond to the Court’s screening order. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. The Court’s findings and recommendations issued on May 23, 2023 (ECF No. 29) are 

VACATED;

2. Within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either: 

a. File a First Amended Complaint; or 

2 Plaintiff’s objections also request consolidation of this case with Singh II. (ECF No. 30, p. 2). As Judge Austin’s 

pending findings and recommendations note, there is a pending motion to consolidate before District Judge Thurston 

in Singh II. 2023 WL 4162907, at *1. Accordingly, the Court will not address this request. 

Case 1:22-cv-01412-KES-EPG Document 31 Filed 06/28/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

b. Notify the Court that he wants to proceed only on claims against Defendants 

Veithr, Fowler, and Diaz identified in the Court’s April 3, 2023 screening order 

(ECF No. 28); or

c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his complaint.

3. Should Plaintiff choose to amend his complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the amended 

complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 1:22-cv-01412-ADAEPG; and

4. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 

5. Finally, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to attach a copy of the Court’s 

screening order (ECF No. 28) to this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01412-KES-EPG Document 31 Filed 06/28/23 Page 3 of 3