(PC) James v. County of Sacramento
Filing
66
ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/05/2024 ADOPTING 61 Findings and Recommendations in full; and DENYING 48 & 54 Plaintiff's requests to supplement the sixth Amended Complaint without prejudice. (Nair, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RONALD EUGENE JAMES,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:22-cv-02193-DAD-JDP (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 48, 54, 61)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Ronald Eugene James is a county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred
19
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On March 12, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
21
recommending that plaintiff’s motions to supplement the sixth amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 48,
22
51) be denied without prejudice because plaintiff did not follow the proper procedure for
23
amending a complaint under Local Rule 220. (Doc. No. 61 at 2.) Specifically, plaintiff did not
24
file a proposed seventh amended complaint that was complete in itself. (Id.) (citing Goodbar v.
25
Paldara, No. 1:21-cv-01811-GSA-PC, 2022 WL 1462142, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2022)
26
(“Under Rule 220, Plaintiff may not amend the Complaint by adding new information submitted
27
separately from the Complaint. To add information or make a correction to the Complaint,
28
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint which is complete in itself, without reference to prior
1
1
complaints. To add his new allegations, Plaintiff must file a First Amended Complaint, complete
2
in itself, incorporating the new allegations.”)).
3
Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained
4
notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at
5
5.) On March 29, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations.
6
(Doc. No. 62.) However, plaintiff’s objections do not address the shortcomings of his filings as
7
described in the findings and recommendations.
8
9
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
10
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
11
analysis.
12
Accordingly:
13
1.
14
adopted in full; and
15
2.
16
19
20
Plaintiff’s requests to supplement the sixth amended complaint (Doc Nos. 48, 54)
are denied without prejudice.
17
18
The findings and recommendations issued on March 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 61) are
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 5, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?