Richard Wayne, et al. v. Sierra County, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD WAYNE, et al., No. 2:25-cv-01113-DAD-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 13 v. GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 SIERRA COUNTY, et al., (Doc. Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 15 Defendants. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 98, 100, 119) 16 17 18 Plaintiffs Richard Wayne and Michal Mickey Wayne are proceeding pro se in this civil 19 action which plaintiffs initiated by filing their 467-page complaint in this court on April 16, 2025. 20 (Doc. No. 1.)1 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On August 20, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the motions to dismiss brought on behalf of defendants (Doc. Nos. 58, 59, 60, 24 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 98, 100) be granted. (Doc. No. 119.) 25 The magistrate judge also concluded that the granting of leave to amend would be futile as to 26 1 On May 29, 2025, plaintiffs filed an 86-page first amended complaint in this action. (Doc. No. 27 51.) Although plaintiffs continue to refer to their original complaint, as the magistrate judge recognized in the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is 28 the operative pleading in this action. (See Doc. No. 119 at 1.) 1 most of plaintiffs’ federal claims and that they should be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 2.) 2 The magistrate judge found that the only exceptions were the Title II ADA claim asserted against 3 defendant Sierra County, the due process or retaliation claims asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4 § 1983 against County official defendants involved in the permitting process and any state law 5 claims related to those claims, as to which plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend. (Id.) 6 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 7 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 8 23.) On September 3, 2025, plaintiffs filed 55-pages of single-spaced objections in which they 9 take issue with practically every word of the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 10 120.) On September 10, 2025, defendants Sierra Brooks Property Owners Association and 11 Rebekah Perez filed a response to plaintiffs’ objections. (Doc. No. 130.) Notably, in their 12 objections plaintiffs ask the court to review their complaint “as clarified by the arguments” 13 presented in their objections. (Doc. No. 120 at 2.) Similarly, they suggest that they have 14 “presented arguments” in their objections “to specifically clarify any insufficiencies in regard to 15 the aspects of their claim brought forth by the Magistrate.” (Id. at 54.) Plaintiffs misapprehend 16 the purpose of objections. Just as the “court may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff’s 17 moving papers, such as a[n] . . . opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss,” Schneider v. Cal. 18 Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), so too the court may not look to the 19 plaintiffs’ objections to clarify the allegations of their complaint or to cure any pleading 20 deficiencies reflected therein. See Sandoval v. Diaz, No. 1:20-cv-001314-DAD-BAM (PC), 2021 21 WL 4566490, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021) (“[P]laintiff’s objections cannot substitute for a short 22 and plain statement of facts in the complaint.”); see also Ahmed v. Martel, No. 1:13-cv-00941- 23 DAD-MJS, 2016 WL 8673042, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2016) (citing Local Rule 220 to support 24 the proposition that the “plaintiff may not plead additional factual allegations through his 25 objections”). In short, the undersigned concludes that plaintiffs’ objections fail to provide any 26 reasonable basis upon which the pending findings and recommendations should be rejected. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 28 de novo review of the case. Having reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs’ lengthy 1 | objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 2 | record and by proper analysis. 3 Accordingly: 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 20, 2025 (Doc. No. 119) are 5 ADOPTED; 6 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 7 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 98, 100) are GRANTED; 8 3. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a second amended complaint within twenty-one 9 days of the service of this order only as to their ADA claim asserted against 10 defendant Sierra County, their due process and/or retaliation claims asserted 11 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against County official defendants involved in the 12 permitting process, and as to any state law claims related to those claims; and 13 4. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 14 proceedings consistent with this order. I5 IT IS SO ORDERED. '° | Dated: _ March 18, 2026 Da A. 2, ye 17 DALE A. DROZD 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28