Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02633/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02633-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAY L. SELLERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2633 MCE GGH PS

vs.

DAVIS POLICE,

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

__________________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

72-302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Before the court could screen the original complaint, plaintiff filed an amended

complaint on December 8, 2006. The amended complaint names three cases in the caption, and

plaintiff states that he wishes to consolidate these actions into the amended complaint which he

has filed in all three actions: Sellers v. Coldiron, Civ.S. 06-2443 FCD KJM, Sellers v. Leigh,

Civ.S. 06-2510 GEB DAD, and the instant case. Plaintiff states that the amended complaint

Case 2:06-cv-02633-MCE -GGH Document 5 Filed 04/04/07 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

 Plaintiff has only cited three cases rather than four; however, he refers to a prior case 1

number, 04-4146 which does not list plaintiff as a party.

2

supersedes the four complaints in these cases. He has attached a copy of the complaint in case 1

number 06-2443 to his amended complaint. Due to the duplicative nature of the present action,

and plaintiff’s stated intention to proceed with one action, the court will recommend that this

action be dismissed. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned

to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the

court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that 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: 4/4/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

Sellers2633.dis.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-02633-MCE -GGH Document 5 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2