Maryann Watkins v. California Department of Housing and Community Development

C.D. California

Maryann Watkins v. California Department of Housing and Community Development

DecidedMarch 11, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-07286

StatusUnknown

This text of Maryann Watkins v. California Department of Housing and Community Development (Maryann Watkins v. California Department of Housing and Community Development) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maryann Watkins v. California Department of Housing and Community Development, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARYANN WATKINS, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-07286-FLA (RAO)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 16 PREJUDICE, AND DENYING DEVELOPMENT, et al., PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 17 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS 18 Defendants. MOOT [DKTS. 51, 61, 69]

19 20 21 22 23

26 27 28 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Third Amended 2 Complaint (“TAC”), Dkt. 46, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the TAC, Dkt. No. 51, 3 Plaintiffs’ Opposition, Dkt. 55, Defendants’ Reply, Dkt. No. 57, Plaintifffs’ Motion 4 for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 61, Defendants’ Opposition, Dkt. No. 62, Plaintiffs’ 5 Reply, Dkt. 68, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 6 (“Report”) dated January 10, 2025, Dkt. 69, Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report, Dkt. 7 73, and all other records and files herein. 8 The court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to 9 which Plaintiffs have objected. The Report recommends the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ 10 Third Amended Complaint without further leave to amend. Dkt. 69. The Third 11 Amended Complaint alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights based on 12 Defendants’ delay of Plaintiffs’ plans to build a manufactured home in Los Angeles 13 County. Dkt. 46 at 6, 8. Plaintiffs’ objections to the Report, Dkt. 73, do not 14 warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 15 Plaintiffs object to the Report’s finding that they have failed to state a claim 16 on which relief may be granted. Dkt. 73 at 1–2. They object that Defendants held 17 up the permit, refused to grant the permit, and could have performed the inspection 18 or plan check under the standards of the Department of Housing and Urban 19 Development. Id. These objections do not call into question the Report’s finding 20 that such allegations do not raise a plausible basis for a claim under the First, 21 Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments. Dkt. 69 at 8. Plaintiffs also failed to 22 state a Fifth Amendment claim for a regulatory taking, because they do not allege 23 they were required to pay a fee or fund offsite work or improvements. Id. at 9–10. 24 They also failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for a violation of due 25 process. Id. at 10–11. 26 Plaintiffs object to the Report’s finding that the claims against the California 27 Department of Housing and Community Development and the official-capacity 28 claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. 73 at 3–6. The objections, 1 || which are based on conclusory allegations of perjury, fraud, and bribery, raise no 2 || grounds to call into question the Report’s Eleventh Amendment analysis. Dkt. 69 3 || at 6-7. 4 Finally, Plaintiffs object there has been judicial misconduct that resulted in a 5 || “fraud on the court.” Dkt. 73 at 7-15. Plaintiffs allege federal judges throughout 6 || the Ninth Circuit are being paid for their decisions. /d. at 7-8, 11. They also 7 || object, “God willing you will all be prosecuted for such hyenas’ crimes.” /d. at 11. 8 || These allegations are dismissed as frivolous and malicious. See Theriault v. Silver, 9 || 574 F.2d 197, 197 (Sth Cir. 1978) (order) (insulting and disrespectful references to 10 || the judge are subject to summary dismissal as beneath the dignity of the court). 11 The court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ objections and overrules them. The 12 || court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 13 || the Magistrate Judge. 14 Accordingly, IT [IS ORDERED that: 15 (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted; 16 (2) Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are dismissed without prejudice; and 17 (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: March 11, 2025 0 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARYANN WATKINS, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-07286-FLA (RAO)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 16 PREJUDICE, AND DENYING DEVELOPMENT, et al., PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 17 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS 18 Defendants. MOOT [DKTS. 51, 61, 69]

19 20 21 22 23

26 27 28 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Third Amended 2 Complaint (“TAC”), Dkt. 46, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the TAC, Dkt. No. 51, 3 Plaintiffs’ Opposition, Dkt. 55, Defendants’ Reply, Dkt. No. 57, Plaintifffs’ Motion 4 for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 61, Defendants’ Opposition, Dkt. No. 62, Plaintiffs’ 5 Reply, Dkt. 68, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 6 (“Report”) dated January 10, 2025, Dkt. 69, Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report, Dkt. 7 73, and all other records and files herein. 8 The court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to 9 which Plaintiffs have objected. The Report recommends the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ 10 Third Amended Complaint without further leave to amend. Dkt. 69. The Third 11 Amended Complaint alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights based on 12 Defendants’ delay of Plaintiffs’ plans to build a manufactured home in Los Angeles 13 County. Dkt. 46 at 6, 8. Plaintiffs’ objections to the Report, Dkt. 73, do not 14 warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 15 Plaintiffs object to the Report’s finding that they have failed to state a claim 16 on which relief may be granted. Dkt. 73 at 1–2. They object that Defendants held 17 up the permit, refused to grant the permit, and could have performed the inspection 18 or plan check under the standards of the Department of Housing and Urban 19 Development. Id. These objections do not call into question the Report’s finding 20 that such allegations do not raise a plausible basis for a claim under the First, 21 Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments. Dkt. 69 at 8. Plaintiffs also failed to 22 state a Fifth Amendment claim for a regulatory taking, because they do not allege 23 they were required to pay a fee or fund offsite work or improvements. Id. at 9–10. 24 They also failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for a violation of due 25 process. Id. at 10–11. 26 Plaintiffs object to the Report’s finding that the claims against the California 27 Department of Housing and Community Development and the official-capacity 28 claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. 73 at 3–6. The objections, 1 || which are based on conclusory allegations of perjury, fraud, and bribery, raise no 2 || grounds to call into question the Report’s Eleventh Amendment analysis. Dkt. 69 3 || at 6-7. 4 Finally, Plaintiffs object there has been judicial misconduct that resulted in a 5 || “fraud on the court.” Dkt. 73 at 7-15. Plaintiffs allege federal judges throughout 6 || the Ninth Circuit are being paid for their decisions. /d. at 7-8, 11. They also 7 || object, “God willing you will all be prosecuted for such hyenas’ crimes.” /d. at 11. 8 || These allegations are dismissed as frivolous and malicious. See Theriault v. Silver, 9 || 574 F.2d 197, 197 (Sth Cir. 1978) (order) (insulting and disrespectful references to 10 || the judge are subject to summary dismissal as beneath the dignity of the court). 11 The court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ objections and overrules them. The 12 || court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 13 || the Magistrate Judge. 14 Accordingly, IT [IS ORDERED that: 15 (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted; 16 (2) Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are dismissed without prejudice; and 17 (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: March 11, 2025 0 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Maryann Watkins v. California Department of Housing and Community Development, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maryann-watkins-v-california-department-of-housing-and-community-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack