Diaz
(PC) Young v. Diaz
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ZURI S. YOUNG and GEORGE LOVIN No. 2:19-cv-983-JAM-EFB P
JACKSON,
11 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 13 RALPH M. DIAZ, et al., 14 Defendants.
16 Plaintiffs Young and Jackson – both state prisoners – have brought this section 1983 17 action without the assistance of counsel. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local 18 Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 The court previously screened plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 20 ECF No. 15. On October 17, 2019, the court issued an order addressing Jackson’s claim. Id. 21 The court dismissed his claims, explained the deficiencies therein, and granted Jackson thirty 22 days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. Id. The order warned 23 Jackson that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 24 The time for acting has now passed and Jackson has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise 25 responded to the court’s order. Thus, it appears that…