Jones v. King et al, No. 1:2009cv02004 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state claim re 1 Complaint filed by Michael J. Jones Matter referred to Judge O'Neill; signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/22/2010. Objections to F&R due by 3/8/2010(Kusamura, W)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. King et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MICHAEL J. JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) BAKERSFIELD POLICE OFFICER ) THEODORE KING AND BAKERSFIELD ) POLICE OFFICER SCOTT DREWERY, sued ) in their individual and in their official ) capacities, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) Case No. 1:09-cv-2004-LJO-JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE 18 19 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 20 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 22 On January 19, 2010, the Court ordered the complaint dismissed with leave to amend. 23 The order of dismissal was based upon the vagueness of the complaint which made it impossible 24 to determine whether the underlying criminal proceedings terminated in his favor and because it 25 appeared to the Court that Plaintiff may have been attempting to state a class action claim, 26 although the ambiguity of the complaint made this unclear. (Doc. 5) Also, although Plaintiff 27 alleged that the officers acted in their official capacities, he failed to state any facts that would 28 give rise to municipal liability. (Doc. 5) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The order allowed Plaintiff 30 days time in which to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 5) 2 The order was served on Plaintiff on January 19, 2010. Although the time for filing the amended 3 complaint has passed, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor sought an extension of 4 time within which to do so. 5 RECOMMENDATION 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends, 7 1. 8 9 That the complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 11 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 12 Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections 13 with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 14 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be filed 15 within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The District Judge will then review the 16 Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within 17 the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 18 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: February 22, 2010 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
