(PS) Halajian v. Yost

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 BARRY STUART HALAJIAN, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0826 JLT SKO ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 13 v. ) DEEFNDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH ) LEAVE TO AMEND 14 KELLY YOST, et al, ) ) (Docs. 5, 14, 20) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 Barry Halajian is proceeding pro se in this action, in which he seeks to hold Kelly Yost and the 18 City of Fresno liable for violations of federal and state laws, including violations of his civil rights, the 19 Bill of Attainder, the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, negligent interference with a 20 prospective economic advantage, and infliction of emotional distress. (See generally Doc. 1.) 21 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 8, 12(b)(1)(6), 12(e), 12(f) and 12(g) of 22 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 5.) 23 The assigned magistrate judge noted Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was 24 untimely, and recommended the Court grant his request to consider the belated filing. (Doc. 20 at 2.) 25 Reviewing the allegations of the complaint, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to sufficiently 26 allege facts that would support Monell liability against the City. (Id. at 9-10.) In addition, the 27 magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state constitutional violations under the Equal Protections 28 Clause, the Due Process Clause, and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. (Id. at 10-12.) The 1 magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to state a claim regarding a bill of attainder, because 2 Plaintiff did not identify any “bill” in issue. (Id. at 13.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff did 3 not allege a violation of the Contracts Clause because “Plaintiff has not alleged the state legislature has 4 impaired his contract with another party (nor has Plaintiff alleged he has a contract with 5 Defendant.” (Id. at 14.) Finally, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a claim under state 6 law because he did not “identif[y] a statutory basis for liability.” (Id. at 15.) Therefore, the magistrate 7 judge recommended the motion to dismiss be granted, and Plaintiff be given leave to file an amended 8 complaint. (Id. at 15-16.) 9 Plaintiff filed an “Opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 10 (Doc. 22.) He contends the magistrate judge erred in finding that he fails to state a claim, and 11 “object[s] to being shut out of the discovery process.” (Id. at 6-7; see also id. at 28.) Plaintiff also 12 alleges additional facts and submits exhibits to support of his claims. (See id. at 30-36.) 13 The Court does not find the objections meaningfully respond to the specific findings of the 14 magistrate judge related to the pleading deficiencies of the claims raised. To the extent Plaintiff now 15 submits additional allegations and evidence to support his claim, such are not relevant to the 16 determination of whether he stated a cognizable claim in the initial complaint. Further, to the extent 17 that Plaintiff contends he is being “shut out” of the discovery process, he is simply required to state a 18 cognizable claim before the Court will open discovery. See Simon v. Value Behavioral Health, Inc. 19 208 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000 (observing that a plaintiff has “the burden of pleading a cognizable 20 claim,” and declining to disturb the ruling of the district court to not permit immediate discovery); see 21 also Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 379 (6th Cir. 2007) (“It is well established that there is no 22 general right to discovery upon filing of the complaint…. In the absence of a cognizable claim, 23 [plaintiffs] have no right to any discovery”) (citation omitted)). 24 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having 25 carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the Findings and 26 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 15, 2024 (Doc. 20) are 28 ADOPTED in full. 1 2. Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to file an opposition (Doc. 14) is GRANTE 2 nunc pro tunc. 3 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. 4 4. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED with leave to amend. 5 5. Within 21 days, Plaintiff SHALL file a First Amended Complaint. The amended 6 complaint SHALL bear the case number and be signed under penalty of perjury. 7 Plaintiff's amended complaint shall not exceed 30 pages, including exhibits. 8 Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal without prejudice failure to 9 prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order. 10 11 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ December 23, 2024 Charis [Tourn 13 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28