Valenta Duncan v. County of Sacramento

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALENTA DUNCAN, No. 2:25-cv-0908-TLN-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants Alameda 18 County Sheriff’s Department and County of Sacramento1 moved to dismiss plaintiff’s second 19 amended complaint (“SAC”). Because plaintiff proceeds pro se, this matter is before the 20 undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As set forth below, 21 plaintiff has not opposed the motion to dismiss by Alameda County Sheriff’s Department after 22 being specifically cautioned that failure to do so would be deemed as consent to grant the motion 23 to dismiss. Thus, the undersigned recommends plaintiff’s claims against Alameda County 24 Sheriff’s Department be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). As to 25 County of Sacramento’s motion, the undersigned recommends the motion to dismiss be…