Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02667/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02667-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUTH LaTOURELLE, No. CIV S-10-2667-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

TERRY BARBER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On January 24, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file

objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have

been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

304(f), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis, except as outlined below.

1

Case 2:10-cv-02667-DOC Document 29 Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

In their objections to the January 24, 2012, findings and recommendations,

Defendants note that, while they have argued that Plaintiff’s 6th Claim (set forth as the 10th

claim in the original complaint) that Defendant Barber committed a state tort by disclosing

private facts is deficient because Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the state’s tort

claims process, the Magistrate Judge overlooked this argument. It appears that Defendants’

objections are based on a clerical mistake contained within the January 24, 2012, findings and

recommendations. In particular, Defendants argue in their motion to dismiss that all the state law

tort claims – including the 6th Claim – must be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to

allege compliance with the tort claims process. The Magistrate Judge summarized this argument

as follows: “Defendants argue: . . . the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th Claims are barred by failure to

comply with the Tort Claims Act. . . .” In fact, Defendants’ argument pertained to the 3rd, 4th,

5th, and 6th Claims. The Magistrate Judge agreed. The Magistrate Judge accurately

summarized and discussed Defendants’ specific arguments relating to the 8th Claim elsewhere in

the findings and recommendations. Despite the clerical error (i.e., the “8th” was substituted for

“6th”), the findings and recommendations correctly address the issue of pleading compliance

with the state tort claims process. The 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claims are thus dismissed with leave

to amend. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 24, 2012 (ECF No. 27),

are ADOPTED in full, except as outlined above with respect to the 6th Claim;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 19) to add the new 7th

Claim is GRANTED;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part; 

4. The 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Claims are DISMISSED with leave to amend

because Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the state’s Tort Claims Act;

2

Case 2:10-cv-02667-DOC Document 29 Filed 03/29/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5. The 1st Claim is limited to allegations of discrimination addressed in the

right-to-sue letter; 

6. The 8th Claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

7. Plaintiff shall file an second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of

the date this Order is electronically filed to allege compliance with the state’s Tort Claims Act in

a single pleading. 

Dated: March 28, 2012

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 2:10-cv-02667-DOC Document 29 Filed 03/29/12 Page 3 of 3