1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 EUGENE LEON PRICE, Case No. 2:25-cv-2809-JDP (P)
12 Plaintiff
13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
On December 1, 2025, I dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend after finding
17
that it did not state a cognizable section 1983 claim. ECF No. 9. On January 9, 2026, plaintiff
18
filed “objections” to my screening order. ECF No. 16. After reviewing them, I found that they
19
did not give me cause to rethink my analysis and, on February 23, 2026, I directed plaintiff to
20
submit either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within twenty-one days.
21
ECF No. 17. Plaintiff again filed “objections,” ECF No. 18, that do not give me any cause to
22
revisit my screening determinations. In my previous order, I advised plaintiff that, if he did not
23
file an amended complaint, I would recommend dismissal of this action. ECF No. 17 at 2. Those
24
recommendations will now issue.
25
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this
26
action.
27
28
] Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute
2 | and for failure to state a claim for the reasons stated in my orders at ECF Nos. 9 & 17.
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 of
5 || service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the
6 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to
7 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed
8 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
9 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See
10 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
11 1991).
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 ( ie —
Dated: _ September 3, 2026 q———_
15 JEREMY D. PETERSON
16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.