Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00226/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00226-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEAN MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEWAYNE MOORE, individually, and as

Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of

Fresno; CITY OF FRESNO, a City or

Municipality; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00226-JLT-SKO 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 20)

Dean Murphy, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Dewayne Moore and the 

City of Fresno (the “City”) (collectively, “Defendants”) by filing a complaint on February 21, 

2024. (Doc. 1) Defendants moved to dismiss (Doc. 11) the operative First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 9) on June 13, 2024. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (See Doc. 13)

On September 30, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending the Court: (1) grant Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a late 

opposition; (2) grant both parties’ requests for judicial notice; (3) grant Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss in part and deny it in part, with leave to amend some claims; and (4) grant Defendants’ 

motion to strike in part and deny it in part. (Doc. 20) The Court advised the parties that any

Case 1:24-cv-00226-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 11/01/24 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

27

28

2

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within 21 days of service. (See

Doc. 21) The parties were informed that the “failure to file objections within the specified time 

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Doc. 20 at 26, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 

F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)) No objections were filed, and the time to do so has expired.

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 

the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 30, 2024 (Doc. 20) are 

ADOPTED IN FULL.

2. Defendant’s Motion and Request for Leave to File a Late Opposition (Doc. 17) is

GRANTED.

3. Both parties’ requests for judicial notice (Docs. 11, 18) are GRANTED.

4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART, as follows:

a. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims 

under Article 1, sections 2, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution, and 

those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;

b. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claim under 

Article 1, section 19 of the California Constitution and Plaintiff’s § 1983 

due process claim, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND; and

c. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED regarding Plaintiff’s claim 

under the Bane Act and the § 1983 claim based on the First and Fourth 

Amendments.

5. Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 11) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART, as follows:

a. Defendants’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED as to references to the Fifth 

Case 1:24-cv-00226-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 11/01/24 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

27

28

3

Amendment in Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief and Plaintiff’s request for 

treble damages; and

b. Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED as to references to the Fifth 

Amendment in Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief and Plaintiff’s request for 

attorney’s fees.

6. Within 21 days, Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint. Failure to 

timely file an amended Complaint indicates to the Court that Plaintiff wishes to 

continue litigation based on his current Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00226-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 11/01/24 Page 3 of 3