Maxwell v. Pacione

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWN MAXWELL, Case No. 1:24-cv-00409 JLT CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION FOR 14 LISA PACIONE, et al., LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DISMISSING ACTION 15 Defendants. WITH PREJUDICE

16 (Doc. 73) 17

18 Shawn Maxwell, proceeding pro se, brings this action against judicial officers, 19 governmental agencies, the mother of his child, and others related to paternity and child support 20 determinations. On October 10, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint. (Doc. 21 52.) Though certain claims and defendants were dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiff was granted 22 leave to amend his Monell claim and any cognizable state law causes of action against the County 23 Defendants. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 1, 2024. (Doc. 55.) The 24 Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on December 17, 2024. (Docs. 60, 63.) 25 On January 22, 2025, the magistrate judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why 26 this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely file a first amended complaint curing the 27 deficiencies previously noted by the Court. (Doc. 66.) On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed two, substantially identical documents, both titled 1 “response to order to show cause and request to accept the first amended complaint for filing.” 2 (Docs. 67, 68.) Plaintiff separately lodged a copy of the proposed first amended complaint the 3 same day. (Doc. 70.) 4 On June 17, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, construing 5 Plaintiff’s filings as an untimely motion for leave to file an amended complaint and 6 recommending the motion be denied. (Doc. 73.) The magistrate judge noted that in the proposed 7 first amended complaint, Plaintiff failed to remedy the previously identified pleading deficiencies, 8 repeated claims barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine and judicial immunity (id. at 6), and 9 again failed to adequately allege section 1983 claims against the County Defendants (id. at 6–7). 10 The magistrate judge found that further leave to amend would be futile. (Id. at 7.) 11 The Court served the findings and recommendations on the parties and notified them that 12 any objections were due within 14 days. (Id. at 8.) The Court also advised the parties that the 13 “failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights 14 on appeal.” (Id. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No party filed 15 objections, and the time do so has expired. 16 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 17 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the findings and 18 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. As the magistrate judge 19 correctly explained, it would be futile to permit the filing of the lodged amended complaint, 20 which fails to cure the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Monell claim against the County.1 Accordingly, 21 the Court ORDERS: 22 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 17, 2025 (Doc. 73), are 23 2. Plaintiff’s request for the Court to accept the first amended complaint for filing 24 (Docs. 67, 68, 70) is DENIED. 25 3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 26 /// 27 /// 1 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

| Dated: _ July 10, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28