Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00623/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00623-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. DUNBAR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0623 TLN CKD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding with an action for violation of civil rights 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 18, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion asking that Sacramento 

County be added as a defendant in this action.

A review of plaintiff’s complaint reveals that plaintiff identified Sacramento County as a 

defendant. However, when the court screened plaintiff’s complaint on June 3, 2013, the court did 

not recognize Sacramento County as a defendant.

In any case, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted 

against Sacramento County because nothing in the complaint suggests that plaintiff suffered any 

injury caused by official Sacramento County policy. See Monell v. New York City Dept. of 

Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (2011). Therefore, the court will recommend that Sacramento 

County be dismissed. Plaintiff may attempt to amend his complaint to add Sacramento County, 

but if he does so he must file a motion to amend and a copy of his proposed amended complaint. 

Case 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 02/25/14 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

The court will not order service of process on Sacramento County if the amended complaint fails 

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against Sacramento County.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 18, 2014 “motion to 

amend” (ECF No. 22) is denied; and 

IT IS HERBY RECOMMENDED that Sacramento County be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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: February 25, 2014

1

tayl0623.lta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 02/25/14 Page 2 of 2