Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00964/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00964-9/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 

ALFREDO HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-0964 SCR P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. §1983. On July 27, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 

33.) In a notice filed September 11, defendants informed the court that they re-served plaintiff 

with the motion on that date. (ECF No. 36.) When plaintiff did not file a timely response to 

defendants’ motion, the court gave plaintiff twenty-one days to file a response and an explanation 

why he was unable to file a timely response. (Oct. 31, 2024 Order; ECF No. 37.) Twenty-one 

days have passed and plaintiff has not filed a response to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment or any sort of response to the court’s October 31 order. 

In the October 31 order, this court warned plaintiff that if he failed to file a response to the 

summary judgment motion or failed to show good cause for his failure to file a timely response, 

this court would recommend this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 37 at 2.) 

//// 

Case 2:22-cv-00964-TLN-SCR Document 38 Filed 12/11/24 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, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district 

judge to this case. 

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33) be 

denied without prejudice and this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and 

failure to follow court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; E.D. Cal. R. 110. 

These findings and recommendations will be 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-one days 

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 10, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-00964-TLN-SCR Document 38 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 2