Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00763/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00763-5/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIENGKHAM SINGANONH,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

PALACIOS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:18-cv-00763-GSA-PC

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO CLARIFY 

HIS STATUS AT THE TIME OF THE 

EVENTS AT ISSUE IN THE 

COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO RESPOND 

TO THIS ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

Tiengkham Singanonh (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed 

the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 

II. PLAINTIFF’S STATUS AT TIME OF EVENTS AT ISSUE

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California. 

The events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at the Fresno County Jail in Fresno, 

California, when Plaintiff was detained there in the custody of the Fresno County Sheriff. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer, or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Before the court can properly screen Plaintiff’s Complaint, the court needs to determine

Plaintiff’s status at the time of the events at issue in the Complaint. It is not clear in the Complaint 

Case 1:18-cv-00763-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 2
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

whether Plaintiff was detained at the Fresno County Jail on May 6, 2013 as a pretrial detainee,

or a convicted prisoner. It is also unclear in the Complaint whether Plaintiff was in state custody 

or federal custody.1

Plaintiff shall be required to file a response to this order within thirty days, informing the 

court of his status when he was in custody at the Fresno County Jail on May 6, 2013 when the 

events at issue in the Complaint occurred. Plaintiff is required to inform the court whether he 

was in state or federal custody and whether he was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner 

when he was detained at the Fresno County Jail.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is required to 

file a response to this order, informing the court of his status at the Fresno County 

Jail on May 6, 2013, at the time of the events at issue in the Complaint;

2. Plaintiff must inform the court whether he was in state or federal custody and 

whether he was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner when he was detained 

at the Fresno County Jail; and

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this case 

for failure to comply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

In the Complaint, Plaintiff refers to “[f]ederal prisoners treatment and their safety while in county 

jail” but he does not identify himself as a federal prisoner or detainee. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)

Case 1:18-cv-00763-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 2