Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06507/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06507-5/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

LESLIE HOOD III, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6507 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONSTODISMISSACTION

vs.

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Leslie Hood III (“plaintiff”) has been incarcerated and proceeds pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). Plaintiff proceeds with a

form complaint (“complaint”) to name as defendants the Fresno Police Department, Fresno Police

Officer Rivera and Fresno Police Officer Cooper. The complaint alleges that during a September 11,

2004 traffic stop and search, plaintiff was arrested for narcotics violations, and $19,000 and drugs were

confiscated. The complaint notes that the $19,000 was not placed in plaintiff’s prison trust account at

the Fresno County jail. For relief, the complaint asks “the Courts to clear this matter with the Fresno

Police Departmen (sic) and place my money on record or return money to me.”

The magistrate judge issued its September 16, 2005 order to dismiss the complaint on grounds

Case 1:04-cv-06507-AWI-LJO Document 20 Filed 12/08/05 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

27

28

2

it fails to satisfy pleading requirements, fails to state a section 1983 or other cognizable claim, is vague,

and appears intended to vex defendants. The magistrate judge issued several orders to grant plaintiff

extensions to file an amended complaint, the last of which granted plaintiff up to November 15, 2005

to file an amended complaint. The magistrate judge’s September 16, 2005 and November 14, 2005

orders admonished plaintiff that “failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order

will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey a court order.” (Original

in bold.)

After plaintiff failed to file a timely amended complaint, the magistrate judge issued November

17, 2005 findings acaedcmnd recommendations to dismiss this action without prejudice on grounds

plaintiff has failed to: (1) file an amended complaint; (2) comply with this Court’s orders; and (3)

diligently prosecute this action. Plaintiff filed 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 findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s November 17, 2005 findings and

recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this entire action without prejudice on grounds plaintiff has failed to: (1)

file an amended complaint; (2) comply with this Court’s orders; and (3) diligently

prosecute this action.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06507-AWI-LJO Document 20 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 2