Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00541/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00541-3/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 

EMMETT WADE CHRISTIAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0541-JAM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In reviewing the complaint, the court found that the question of proper venue was 

not apparent from the face of the complaint. Accordingly, on June 29, 2015, the court ordered 

plaintiff to show cause within thirty days why this action, which appears to be based upon events 

that arose at the California Men’s Colony, should not be transferred to the United States District 

Court for the Central District of California. ECF No. 9. 

The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has failed to respond to the order to show 

cause. Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

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 fourteen days 

Case 2:15-cv-00541-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 08/07/15 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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 6, 2015. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00541-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 2