Floyd v. Singh
- Alex Tse
- 3:24-cv-06879
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Floyd v. Singh: Judge Tse denied leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed Fourth Amendment claim lacked government action.
Michael Devin Floyd’s request to add a Fourth Amendment claim against Jagdeep Singh and Cameron Sawyer was rejected; the opinion does not state the effect on any other claims.
What happened
In Michael Devin Floyd v. Jagdeep Singh, Floyd asked to add a claim alleging that Hayward police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to reasonably seize his belongings during an arrest. He alleged that civilians took the belongings from his bag and locker without his permission and outside the officers’ presence.
The court said the proposed claim repeated allegations that it had previously found insufficient. Because Floyd did not allege that the officers ordered, participated in, or encouraged the civilians’ actions, the court found no search or seizure by a government actor. It therefore found that the proposed claim could not support a claim under the federal civil-rights statute and that amendment would be futile.
Judge Alex Tse denied leave to file a second amended complaint, vacated the scheduled hearing, and stated that the order disposed of the motion. The court also noted that Rule 54 did not apply because no judgment had been entered.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. Singh · No. 3:24-cv-06879
- Alex Tse
- Mar. 10, 2026
Background
Michael Devin Floyd moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. Jagdeep Singh and Cameron Sawyer, identified as Hayward police officers, opposed the motion. The court resolved the matter without a hearing under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and vacated the hearing previously set for March 27, 2026.
Floyd sought to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, based on an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment. He argued that the defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to reasonably seize his personal belongings in connection with an arrest. According to the proposed allegations, Floyd’s belongings were in his bag and locker, he asked to retrieve them, and a civilian or civilians took the belongings against his wishes without any officer observing.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the proposed claim was materially identical to a claim in Floyd’s original complaint and first amended complaint. The court had previously found that claim insufficient and dismissed it without leave to amend. The court also noted Floyd’s statement that he wanted to add the earlier claim back into the case.
The court explained that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by government actors. Floyd did not allege that the defendants ordered a civilian to collect his belongings, participated in the collection, or acted in the civilian’s presence. The court therefore found no search or seizure by a government actor and concluded that the Fourth Amendment was not implicated on the allegations presented.
The court considered Floyd’s reliance on George v. Edholm, which discusses circumstances in which officers may be responsible for a private party’s search when they ordered or were complicit in it. The court found that case distinguishable because Floyd made no comparable allegation that the officers participated in, induced, encouraged, or promoted the collection of his belongings.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts generally should freely grant leave to amend when justice requires, but amendment may be denied when it would be futile. Because the proposed allegations were insufficient to support a § 1983 claim based on the Fourth Amendment, the court found that amendment would be futile.
The court also noted that Floyd invoked Rule 54, but explained that Rule 54 concerns judgments and costs and that no judgment had been entered in the case.
Disposition
Judge Alex Tse denied leave to file a second amended complaint. The order dispensed with docket entry 49, and the previously scheduled hearing was vacated. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.