Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00478/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00478-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

TROY ALEXANDER TEMPLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL GIBSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00478-EFB (PC) 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff proceeds without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 On May 30, 2024, the court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 6. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and 

granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. Id. 

The screening order warned plaintiff that failure to comply could result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed. After plaintiff sought an extension of time, the court granted an 

additional 90 days to file the amended complaint. ECF No. 8. 

The time for acting has now passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 

otherwise responded to the court’s order. Thus, it appears that plaintiff is unable or unwilling to 

cure the defects in the complaint. 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-00478-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 10/30/24 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 ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to 

this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for 

failure to state a claim. 

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 

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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that 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: October 30, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-00478-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 2