# (PC) Brown v. De Jesus

> District Court, E.D. California · July 6, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020302

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** July 6, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020302

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 ALFRED BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-2087-EFB P
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
13 S. DE JESUS,
14 Defendant.
15
16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.
17 § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18 § 636(b)(1).
19 On April 9, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
20 § 1915A. ECF No. 4. The court dismissed the complaint, explained the deficiencies therein, and
21 granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. Id.
22 The screening order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that
23 this action be dismissed. Despite an extension of time granted to plaintiff (ECF No. 6), the time
24 for acting has now passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Thus, it appears that
25 plaintiff is unable or unwilling to cure the defects in the complaint.
26 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States
27 District Judge to this action.
28 /////
wOASe 2 LUV EAINIT ER RO MVUPTPOCTID POUR Ne Ye eM

1 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for the
2 | reasons set forth in the April 9, 2020 screening order (ECF No. 4).
3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
6 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
7 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
8 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
9 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
10 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez
11 | v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
12 | Dated: July 6, 2020.
13 Sg Vater Lb Li Ai
14 EDMUND F. BRENNAN
Is UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020302. Public record. Not legal advice.