(PS) Humphrey v. Modesto Police Department

Filing 23

ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/11/2025 ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations in Full, GRANTING 16 Motion to Dismiss, DENYING 13 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, DISMISSING this action due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim, and DIRECTING the court to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk AMW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS EDWARD HUMPHREY,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:24-cv-01127-DC-CSK (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.
MODESTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND
(Doc. Nos. 13, 16, 22)

17
18

Plaintiff Thomas Edward Humphrey is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

19

civil action initiated on January 1, 2024. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On February 4, 2025 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

22

recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) be granted because: (1) the only

23

proper defendant in a Federal Tort Claims Act action is the United States, and Plaintiff has not

24

named the United States as a defendant nor are there allegations to suggest there is a federal

25

government actor; (2) Plaintiff concedes in his motion to amend his complaint that the Federal

26

Tort Claims Act does not apply to Defendant Modesto Police Department; and (3) the complaint

27

lacks a cognizable legal theory and does not allege any viable, specific causes of action besides

28

reference to the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Doc. No. 22 at 5–6.) The magistrate judge also
1

1

recommended Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 13) be denied

2

because: (1) Plaintiff only proposes adding a claim under the California Torts Claims Act, but

3

that claim is barred by the timeliness requirement under the California Government Claims Act,

4

making such amendment futile; (2) to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from that timeliness

5

requirement, he would need to file a petition for relief in a California state superior court, not a

6

federal district court; and (3) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant Modesto Police

7

Department’s motion to dismiss. (Id. at 7–8.)

8

Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that

9

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 9.) To date,

10

no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do

11

so has now passed.

12

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

13

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

14

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

15

Accordingly,

16

1.

17

The findings and recommendations issued on February 4, 2025 (Doc. No. 22) are
ADOPTED in full;

18

2.

19

Defendant Modesto Police Department’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is
GRANTED;

20

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED;

21

4.

This action is dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim; and

22

5.

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

23
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

March 11, 2025

___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2