Moore v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Department et al

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 04/24/15 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADRIAN EUGENE MOORE,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-2182-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT,

15
Defendant.
16
17

/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19

636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. The court issued an order to

20

show cause on October 30, 2014, requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be

21

dismissed for failure to state a claim.

22

The court outlined plaintiff’s allegations in its prior order and will not repeat them

23

here. The court found plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim in that it appeared plaintiff’s

24

claims sounded in habeas not in a complaint under § 1983. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity

25

to explain to the court how this case would not impact the validity of his underlying conviction.

26

Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the order to show cause may result in the dismissal
1

1

of this action for the reasons outlined as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court

2

rules and orders. See Local Rule 110.

3

Plaintiff filed a response to the court’s order as directed. However, plaintiff failed

4

to address the defects in his complaint or address the court’s determination as to his claims at all.

5

Rather, he simply informed the court that he has another on-going action in this court. The court

6

construes plaintiff’s response as a consent to the dismissal of this action. The undersigned finds

7

it appropriate to dismiss this action for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

8

granted.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1.

This action is dismissed; and

11

2.

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

12
13
14
15

DATED: April 24, 2015
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2