(PS) Halajian v. Yost

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY STUART HALAJIAN, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00826 JLT SKO

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING 13 vs. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 KELLY YOST, in his Official and Private Capacity, the CITY OF FRESNO, A Municipal (Docs. 32, 35, 36) 15 Corporation, DOES 1-20 inclusive,

16 Defendants.

17 18 Barry Halajian initiated this action against Kelly Yost and the City of Fresno (collectively, 19 “Defendants”) in which he raises various claims. (Doc. 1.) After the Court dismissed the complaint 20 with leave to amend (Doc. 28), he filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 29) Defendants moved to 21 dismiss the FAC (Doc. 32), and Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. The magistrate judge 22 evaluated the motion and recommended it be granted and that Defendants’ motion for a more definite 23 statement and to strike be denied as moot. (Doc. 35.) 24 The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts that would support 25 Monell liability against the City (id. at 9–10); failed to state constitutional violations under the Due 26 Process Clause, the Equal Protections Clause, (id. at 10–11), or the Fourth Amendment, (id. at 12–13); 27 failed to state a claim regarding a bill of attainder, because Plaintiff did not identify any “bill” at issue 1 legislature has impaired his contract with another party nor has Plaintiff alleged he has a contract with 2 Defendant” (id. at 12); and finally, failed to state a claim under state law because he did not “identif[y] 3 a statutory basis for liability.” (Id. at 13.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion to 4 dismiss be granted, and, given that Plaintiff had previously been given leave to amend, that Plaintiff be 5 given no further leave to amend. (Id. at 13–14.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 7 objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 35 at 14–15.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to 8 file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. (citing 9 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014)). On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an 10 “Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 11 Support of Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 37). To the extent this was intended as an opposition to the 12 underlying motion, the submission was untimely as it was filed 20 days late and after the Court issued 13 the Findings and Recommendations. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court has treated 14 the filing as objections to the Findings and Recommendations and has thus considered them and the 15 associated request for judicial notice (Doc. 36). 16 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 17 Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s opposition, construed as objections, the 18 Court concludes the Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 19 Plaintiff’s objections do not present any arguments that meaningfully undermine the reasoning and 20 conclusions of the Findings and Recommendations. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 21 1. The Findings and Recommendation dated February 25, 2025, (Doc. 35), are 22 ADOPTED IN FULL. 23 2. Defendants’ request for Judicial Notice, (Doc. 32-2), is GRANTED. 24 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 32), is GRANTED without leave to amend. 25 4. Defendants’ Motion to Strike, (Doc. 32), is DENIED as moot. 26 5. Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement, (Doc. 32), is DENIED as moot. 27 /// 1 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 1, 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