Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00792/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00792-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE J. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

CIV S-04-0792 GEB PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

—NFN—

On April 21, 2004, this court granted plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the filing

of his complaint. Plaintiff, no longer a prisoner, alleges his 

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were violated when he was

sentenced by the wrong court to state prison despite a probation

recommendation of release, and transported to prison by the

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department without the proper paper

work.

Case 2:04-cv-00792-GEB-PAN Document 12 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim for which

relief can be granted). Plaintiff has filed no opposition,

properly construed as acquiescence to the motion (E. D. Cal. L.

R. 78-230(c), 11-110, and 83-183). The court vacates the hearing

scheduled on this matter for May 11, 2005, and makes these

findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff has properly named only the Sacramento County

Sheriff’s Department as defendant in this action (see Complaint

file stamped April 21, 2004), against whom he has failed to state

any federal cause of action. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to

dismiss should be granted. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr., the United States District

Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: May 23, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00792-GEB-PAN Document 12 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2