Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01326/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01326-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Rhodes
Plaintiff
Sacramento Police Department
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ANDRE RHODES,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-07-1326 FCD GGH PS

vs.

SACRAMENTO POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On December 6, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on

January 25, 2008, and they were considered by the district judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

Case 2:07-cv-01326-FCD-GGH Document 13 Filed 02/20/08 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

2

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The magistrate judge’s recommendation that this case be dismissed is based upon

the requirement the federal courts abstain from considering matters pending in the state courts. 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 760 (1971). This court’s review of the Sacramento

County Superior Court Docket demonstrates the criminal prosecution against plaintiff is still

pending; trial is scheduled to commence February 28, 2008. While plaintiff’s federal claims

may or may not have merit, they do not come within any exception permitting this court’s

intervention in the state court proceedings. Plaintiff may raise his federal claims in state court

and, if dissatisfied at the conclusion of the state proceedings, again file an action in this court.

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 6, 2007, are ADOPTED;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: February 19, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01326-FCD-GGH Document 13 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 2