Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00477/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00477-2/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 

MICHAEL E. JACQUES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JUNG, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-0477 SCR P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. On screening plaintiff’s complaint, the court found plaintiff stated potentially cognizable 

Eighth Amendment and First Amendment claims against defendant Jung and potentially 

cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claims against all defendants. (June 25, 2024 Order, ECF No. 

6.) Plaintiff was given the option of proceeding immediately on the claims found potentially 

cognizable or amending the complaint. The court provided plaintiff with a form to return within 

thirty days to notify the court of their choice. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the 

court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed the Notice on How to Proceed or 

otherwise responded to the court’s June 25, 2024 order. 

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district 

judge to this case; and 

Case 2:24-cv-00477-TLN-SCR Document 10 Filed 08/26/24 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 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice on account of 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders. See 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, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The 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 result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 26, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00477-TLN-SCR Document 10 Filed 08/26/24 Page 2 of 2