Ruelas v. City of Sanger ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SALINA RUELAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-0742 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, 13 v. GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 14 CITY OF SANGER, et al., AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY- ONE DAYS 15 Defendants. (Docs. 6, 14) 16 17 Plaintiff seeks to hold the City of Sanger, the Sanger Police Department, and J. Deshawn 18 Torrence—who at all relevant times was an officer with the police department—liable for 19 violations of the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, Plaintiff seeks to 20 hold Torrence liable for: violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 21 52.1; violation of the Ralph Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51.7; sexual battery; false 22 imprisonment; gender violence; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (See generally 23 Doc. 1-1.) On May 15, 2023, the City of Sanger and the Sanger Police Department filed a motion 24 to dismiss this action. (Doc. 6.) 25 On August 9, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations 26 that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted with leave to amend.1 (Doc. 14.) The Court 27 1 Following amendment of the Local Rules effective March 1, 2022, a certain percentage of civil cases shall be directly assigned to a Magistrate Judge only, with consent or declination of consent forms due within 90 days from 28 the date of filing of the action. L.R. App. A(m)(1). This action was initially directly assigned to a magistrate judge 1 | granted the parties 14 days to file any objections to the Findings and Recommendations and 2 | informed them that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 3 | waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 29, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 4 | 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) No objections were filed, and 5 | the deadline to do so has expired. 6 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 7 | Having carefully reviewed the action, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 8 || are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 9, 2023 (Doc. 14), are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. The motion to dismiss filed May 15, 2023, (Doc. 6), is GRANTED as follows: 12 a. Defendants City of Sanger and Sanger Police Department’s motion to 13 dismiss the second through seventh causes of action, is GRANTED with 14 leave to amend. 15 b. Defendants City of Sanger and Sanger Police Department’s motion to 16 dismiss the first cause of action is GRANTED as to allegations occurring 17 on or before March 27, 2021, with leave to amend. 18 3. Plaintiff SHALL file any amended complaint within 21 days of entry of this order. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 21, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 only, with no district judge assigned. At the time of the issuance of the Findings and Recommendations, not all 27 | parties had appeared or filed consent or declination of consent forms. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 302(c)(7), and Local Rule Appendix A, subsection (m), the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to assign a 28 || District Judge to this action concurrently when the findings and recommendations were issued. (See Doc. 14.)