Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06214/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06214-0/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JONES SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

DARREN “HAP” SWEENEY, )

DEPUTY FOR KING COUNTY )

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6214 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS AS MOOT

ORDER REGARDING

DECLARATIONS

(Documents #35, #37, #39, & # 42)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is currently incarcerated in State

Prison. On November 24, 2004, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The first amended

complaint concerns an incident that occurred on September 6, 2003, when Plaintiff was not in

custody. The amended complaint alleges that Defendant Deputy Darren “Hap” Sweeny

subjected Plaintiff to an illegal seizure without probable cause. The amended complaint alleged

that Defendant Sweeny stopped Plaintiff’s car even though Plaintiff had not committed a traffic

violation. When a passenger in Plaintiff’s car attempted to flee from the car, Defendant Sweeny

shot the vehicle multiple times. 

On December 6, 2004, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended this action proceed on Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and

recommended that other claims contained in the first amended complaint be dismissed. On

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

January 28, 2005, the court adopted the Findings and Recommendations and ordered that this

action proceed on Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

On October 7, 2005 and October 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed declarations. On February 2,

2006, Defendant filed a response to these declarations. Defendant requests that to the extent

these declarations represent a motion to amend, any motion to be denied because the events in

the October 2005 declarations occurred in state prison in December 2004.

On November 11, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint,

or alternatively, a motion for a more definite statement. Defendant contends that the amended

complaint fails to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation, violations of the California

Constitution, and the Declaration on Human Rights.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss

As stated in the court’s January 28, 2005 order, this action shall go forward on Plaintiff’s

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the conduct that occurred on September 6,

2003, as alleged in the November 24, 2004 first amended complaint. Defendant has filed a

motion to dismiss that concerns other potential claims found in the November 24, 2004 first

amended complaint. Because Defendant’s motion addresses claims that have already been

dismissed by this court, Defendant’s motion is moot, and it will be denied.

B. Declarations

On October 7, 2005 and October 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed declarations. The declarations

concern problems that have occurred while Plaintiff has been in state prison. Specifically, the

declarations describe an indicate that occurred in December 2004, when C.O Huron and other

officers allegedly assaulted Plaintiff and a resulting prison administrative hearing. 

Plaintiff is informed that the court takes no action on declarations filed with the court

concerning events not at issue in this action. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint

containing additional allegations, Plaintiff should file a formal motion to amend. Plaintiff is

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3

advised that if he wishes to pursue claims that are completely unrelated to the seizure and

shooting by Defendant Sweeny, Plaintiff should file a new civil action. The court will disregard

the October declarations and Defendant’s response to these declarations. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendant’s November 9, 2005 motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot; and

2. The court will DISREGARD the declarations filed on October 7, 2005 and October 11,

2005, and Defendant’s reply filed on February 2, 2006, because no formal motion to

amend is before the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 02/13/06 Page 3 of 3