Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00582/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00582-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH MILLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0582 LKK DAD P

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed May 30, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to submit, within thirty

days, evidence that he is not a prisoner as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) or, in the alternative, a

properly completed in forma pauperis application with certified copies of plaintiff’s jail trust

account statements for the six month period immediately preceding March 20, 2006. Plaintiff

was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has failed to submit evidence that

he is not a prisoner as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), has not filed a properly completed in

forma pauperis application with trust account statements, and has not otherwise responded to the

court’s order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00582-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 07/11/06 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

2

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

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

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: July 11, 2006.

DAD:lg

mill0583.fifp

Case 2:06-cv-00582-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 2