Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00030/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00030-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Teodoro Severiano Alcaraz
Plaintiff
Michael Martel
Defendant

Document Text:

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

TEODORO SEVERIANO ALCARAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MARTEL,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-0030 JAM DB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On February 12, 2020, the court issued an order to show cause why this matter should not 

be dismissed given that in the complaint plaintiff clearly states that he did not exhaust his 

administrative remedies prior to filing in this court. (See ECF No. 1 at 3; see also ECF No. 10). 

At that time, plaintiff was given thirty days within which to file a response that showed cause. 

(See ECF No. 10 at 6). At that time, plaintiff was also warned that a failure to show cause within 

this period would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (See id.). To date, 

plaintiff has neither filed a response nor responded to the court’s order in any way.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Case 2:19-cv-00030-JAM-DB Document 11 Filed 04/07/20 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

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 thirty days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 

the court. Such a 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 6, 2020April 6, 2020

DLB:13

DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/alca0030.fte.f&r

Case 2:19-cv-00030-JAM-DB Document 11 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 2