Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01111/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01111-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY PROBATION )

DEPARTMENT, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-1111-AWI-SMS 

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(DOCS. 5, 7) 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 

On November 2, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

a recommendation that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint

without leave to amend because it failed to state a claim.

Plaintiff was granted thirty days within which to file

objections. The findings and recommendation were served on all

parties on November 2, 2006.

On December 5, 2006, Plaintiff filed timely objections to

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/20/06 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 findings and recommendations. The undersigned has considered

the objections and has determined there is no need to modify the

findings and recommendations based on the points raised in the

objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo th

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the findings and recommendation are

supported by the record and proper analysis. As explained by

the Magistrate Judge, one may not bring an action for civil

rights damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a wrongful conviction,

incarceration, or for other harm caused by actions whose

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid unless

that conviction or sentence has been determined to be wrongful.

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 2, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. The action IS DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted; and

3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action

because this order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2