Gray v. Fresno Police Department

Opinion

RICHARD GRAY, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-410 JLT HBK ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE ) Defendant. ) (Doc. 9) )

Richard Gray seeks to hold the Fresno Police Department liable for failing to investigate his calls and allowing harassment by Plaintiff’s neighbors. (Doc. 7 at 5-6.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim invoking this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 9 at 2-4.) The magistrate judge found further leave to amend was futile, because Plaintiff failed to cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the prior screening order. (Id. at 4-5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the amended complaint without further leave to amend. (Id. at 5.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 9 at 5.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court finds dismissal without prejudice is appropriate due to the finding that Plaintiff fails to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (“because the district court lacked subje matter jurisdiction, the claims should have been dismissed without prejudice”); Missouri ex rel. □□□□ v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017) (the proper dismissal for lack of jurisdiction “is without prejudice”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 23, 2025 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 3. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ August 16, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE