Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01740/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01740-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, CASE NO. CV F 06-1740 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

OFFICER J. DIAZ, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Phillip Sanders (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this apparent

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). On December 1, 2006, plaintiff filed his complaint

(“original complaint”) against Officers J. Diaz and S. Jaqez (collectively “defendants”) of “the Fresno

County Sheriff Magic [sic] Team” apparently to take issue with his May 23, 2005 arrest and search and

to claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that he was arrested “without reasonable

cause.” The original complaint appeared to address plaintiff’s vehicle stop and search resulting in

plaintiff’s being taken into custody.

The magistrate judge’s December 6, 2006 order dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint with

leave to amend on grounds that the original complaint failed to allege a sufficient section 1983 or other

claim against defendants. On December 20, 2006, plaintiff filed against defendants his amended

complaint (“amended complaint”) which is similar and identical in parts to his original complaint. The

Case 1:06-cv-01740-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 02/02/07 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

2

amended complaint appears to take issue with plaintiff’s May 23, 2005 arrest and vehicle search which

plaintiff alleges was “without reasonable cause.”

The magistrate judge issued December 26, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; and (2) a further attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on the amended

complaint’s deficiencies and apparent attempt to vex defendants. Plaintiff filed no timely objections to

the findings and recommendations.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s December 26, 2006 findings and

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s December 26, 2006 findings and

recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the amended complaint

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (2) a further attempt at

amendment is unwarranted based on the amended complaint’s deficiencies and apparent

attempt to vex defendants; and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01740-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2