(PS) Jones v. City of Sacramento Board of Supervisors

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAHEEM JONES, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-0864-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 9, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed 19 findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which 20 contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 21 filed within fourteen days. Plaintiffs filed objections on May 23, 2025, and they were 22 considered by the undersigned. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 24 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 25 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 26 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 27 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 28 1 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 2 | analysis, with the exception that the Court will grant leave to amend as to Plaintiff Hall. 3 | In his objections, Plaintiff Hall alleges he was subjected to retaliation as a result of his 4 | complaint to the Sacramento City Police Department resulting from the occurrences 5 || alleged in the Complaint. The Court takes no position as to whether those facts would 6 || state a cognizable claim or be properly joined with the other claims in the Complaint. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 9, 2025, are 9 adopted in part; 10 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED; 11 3. Plaintiff Hall’s claims are dismissed for lack of standing with leave to amend; 12 4. Plaintiff Jones’s federal claims are dismissed with leave to amend; 13 5. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state 14 law claims; 15 6. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, ECF No. 5, is DENIED; and 16 7. Plaintiffs Hall and Jones are granted thirty days of any order adopting these 17 findings and recommendations to file a first amended complaint. Failure to 18 do so will result in this action being dismissed. 19 50 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | Dated: _June 6, 2025 “Daniel ‘ CoD tto— Hon. Daniel □□ |. od 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28