Holmes v. Horg

Opinion

DAMEAD HOLMES, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-1573 JLT EPG ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE JAMES HORG, et al., ) THIS CASE ) Defendants. ) (Doc. 5) )

Damead Holmes, a pastor at Unified Christian Church, asserts that he was physically assaulted by a church board member and other church leaders “resisted the peaceful transition of the church’s governance.” (Doc. 1 at 7.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis with this action. (Doc. 5 at 2.) The magistrate judge observed that through the complaint, Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order against the defendants and indicated this Court has jurisdiction based upon 18 U.S.C. § 1514. (Doc. 5 at 4; see also Doc. 1 at 4.) The magistrate judge determined that “Plaintiff’s reliance on this statute is not proper because it does not confer a private right of action necessary to establish subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.” (Id.) In addition, because Plaintiff asserted that one of the defendants had a restraining order against him, the magistrate judge found “to the extent that Plaintiff seeks federal intervention in any state court proceedings, the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines prohibit such relief under these circumstances.” (Id. at 7; see also id. at 5-7.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without prejudice and without leave to amend due to the lack of jurisdiction “and the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines.” Ud. at 7-8.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 5 at 8.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing □□□□□□□ v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to dc 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. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 8, 2025 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED i full. 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 18, 2025 ( Lint Up | Wy h \ TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE