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

> District Court, E.D. California · June 6, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11067291

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 6, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11067291

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11067291. Public record. Not legal advice.