(PC) Gutierrez v. San Joaquin County Jail, No. 2:2022cv01435 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 12/22/22 DIRECTING the clerk to assign a district judge to this case. Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson assigned t o this case for all further proceedings. It is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. New Case Number: 2:22-cv-01435 KJM JDP (PC). (Woodworth, M.)

Download PDF
(PC) Gutierrez v. San Joaquin County Jail Doc. 8 Case 2:22-cv-01435-KJM-JDP Document 8 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOBIAS GUTIERREZ ORNELAS, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, 15 Defendant. 16 Case No. 2:22-cv-01435-JDP (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 On October 4, 2022, I ordered plaintiff to submit, within thirty days, either the $402 filing 19 fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff failed to respond to that 20 order. Accordingly, on November 23, 2022, I ordered plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one 21 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 22 court orders. ECF No. 7. I also warned him that failure to respond to the order would result in a 23 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Id. To date, plaintiff has not 24 submitted the required filing fee nor otherwise responded to the November 23, 2022 order.1 25 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 26 27 28 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the October 4 and November 23 orders were returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-01435-KJM-JDP Document 8 Filed 12/22/22 Page 2 of 2 1 United States District Judge to this case. 2 3 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the required filing fee and failure to comply with court orders. 4 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States 6 District Court, Eastern District of California. The parties may, within 14 days of the service of 7 the findings and recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations 8 with the court. Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 9 and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 10 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: December 22, 2022 14 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.