Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02004/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02004-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On January 19, 2010, the Court ordered the complaint dismissed with leave to amend. 

The order of dismissal was based upon the vagueness of the complaint which made it impossible

to determine whether the underlying criminal proceedings terminated in his favor and because it

appeared to the Court that Plaintiff may have been attempting to state a class action claim,

although the ambiguity of the complaint made this unclear. (Doc. 5) Also, although Plaintiff

alleged that the officers acted in their official capacities, he failed to state any facts that would

give rise to municipal liability. (Doc. 5) 

1

Case 1:09-cv-02004-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 02/22/10 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

27

28

The order allowed Plaintiff 30 days time in which to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 5)

The order was served on Plaintiff on January 19, 2010. Although the time for filing the amended

complaint has passed, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor sought an extension of

time within which to do so.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends, 

1. 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

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be filed

within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The District Judge will then review the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-02004-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2