Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00663/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00663-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bakersfield Police Department
Defendant
Charles Francis Goods
Plaintiff

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES FRANCIS GOODS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAKERSFIELD POLICE 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-00663-DAD-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

AND DISMISSING THE ACTION

(Doc. Nos. 8, 9, 10)

Plaintiff Charles Francis Goods alleges the Bakersfield Police Department and an 

unidentified police officer are liable to him for a violation of the First Amendment and a “threat 

to safety.” (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On May 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

dismissed it with leave to amend after finding that plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to 

state a cognizable claim that invokes this court’s jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 3.) On June 27, 2019, 

after plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint within the thirty-days allotted, the 

magistrate judge issued an order requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order and failure to prosecute the 

action. (Doc. No. 5.) On July 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause 

Case 1:19-cv-00663-DAD-JLT Document 16 Filed 01/13/20 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

stating that he lost his copies of the documents related to this action. (Doc. No. 6.) On July 29, 

2019, the court directed the Clerk of the Court to provide plaintiff a copy of the order dated May 

23, 2019, directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than August 13, 2019, and 

informed plaintiff that the order to show cause remained in effect. (Doc. No. 7.) 

On August 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a “motion to proceed only [on] the claim of corruption” 

against the Bakersfield Police Department. (Doc. No. 8.) On August 7, 2019, plaintiff filed a 

“motion to show cause in this case,” once again asserting that a law enforcement officer was 

corrupt and broke the law by frightening plaintiff. (Doc. No. 9.) To date, however, plaintiff has

still not filed an amended complaint in this action as required by the court’s orders. 

Accordingly, on August 20, 2019, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s 

failure to state a cognizable claim that invokes this court’s jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 10.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 

thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 8.) To date, plaintiff has not 

filed any objections to those findings and recommendations, and the time for doing so has passed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 204, the 

court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendation issued on August 20, 2019 (Doc. No. 10) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on a claim alleging corruption (Doc. No. 8) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to show cause (Doc. No. 9) is denied;

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00663-DAD-JLT Document 16 Filed 01/13/20 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

4. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:19-cv-00663-DAD-JLT Document 16 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 3