Scott Robert Moore v. Amy C. Yerkey, et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-09463
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT ROBERT MOORE, No. 2:25-cv-09463-AB-BFM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 13 v. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 AMY C. YERKEY, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the 18 records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 19 Judge (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those 20 portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 21 The Report recommends the dismissal of the Complaint with the exception of 22 Plaintiff’s claim against his landlord for housing discrimination and retaliation. 23 (Dkt. No. 31.) Plaintiff’s objections to the Report (Dkt. No. 34) do not merit any 24 change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 25 Plaintiff objects that the Report ignored violations of Title II of the 26 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) during his unlawful detainer proceeding 27 in state court. (Dkt. No. 34 at 7-10, 14.) The Report properly found that Plaintiff’s 28 claims against Judge Yerkey and the state courts were barred by the Eleventh 1 Amendment, judicial immunity, and the Anti-Injunction Act.. (Dkt. No. 31 at 6-10.) 2 Plaintiff fails to offer any persuasive argument for overcoming these doctrines. For 3 example, Plaintiff appears to argue that his case qualifies for an exception to the 4 Anti-Injunction Act under Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972), permitting 5 federal intervention that is expressly authorized by an Act of Congress. (Dkt. No. 6 34 at 9.) The Court disagrees that Plaintiff’s claims under Title II of the ADA 7 permit federal injunctive intervention. See Braverman v. New Mexico, 2011 WL 8 6013587, at *19 (D. N.M. Oct. 19. 2011) (analyzing several cases to conclude, 9 “There is no evidence that the federal rights that Congress created in the ADA will 10 be frustrated if federal courts are not empowered to enjoin state court proceedings 11 or that the only way to effectuate the ADA’s purposes will be to issue an 12 injunction.”). 13 Plaintiff objects that the Report disregarded his claim for injunctive relief 14 under the Fair Housing Act. (Dkt. No. 34 at 11-12.) The Report properly found 15 that such relief is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. (Dkt. No. 31 at 13.) Plaintiff’s 16 reliance on an exception for an Act of Congress, under Mitchum v. Foster (Dkt. No. 17 34 at 12), is unavailing. See Warda v. Santee Apartments LP, 2017 WL 1336843, 18 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) (claim under Fair Housing Act does not satisfy 19 exception to Anti-Injunction Act when a plaintiff seeks to enjoin a state court 20 unlawful detainer action, because the claim is enforceable in both state and federal 21 court) (citing cases). 22 Plaintiff objects that the Report erroneously dismissed his claim seeking an 23 accounting of Defendant Domingo’s assets. (Dkt. No. 34 at 12.) The Report 24 properly found that Plaintiff lacks standing to demand an accounting because he 25 does not allege he would be entitled to any funds that Defendant Domingo allegedly 26 obtained wrongfully. (Dkt. No. 31 at 14.) 27 Plaintiff objects that the Report erroneously concluded that his claims against 28 Defendant Sheriff Luna fails. (Dkt. No. 34 at 12-14, 15-17.) The Report properly 1 found that the Sheriff had a mandatory duty to serve the writ of possession pursuant 2 to the eviction and had no duty to investigate Plaintiff’s challenges to the legal 3 soundness of the state court’s eviction order. (Dkt. No. 31 at 11.) Moreover, 4 “Plaintiff does not clearly allege how he has been excluded from any benefit or 5 service offered by the Sheriff’s Department, nor is it evident that the Sheriff has any 6 authority to delay enforcement of the judgment the court has entered, which is the 7 relief Plaintiff says the Sheriff should have afforded him through the iterative 8 process[.]” (Id. at 11-12 (citing Busch v. Torres, 905 F. Supp. 766, 771 (C.D. Cal. 9 1995) (recommending dismissal on Rooker-Feldman grounds of claim against 10 sheriff responsible for executing writ of possession following eviction order; “just 11 as it is impossible to attack a state court order in federal court, it is impossible to 12 attack the implementation of that order by suing the individuals, either in their 13 individual or official capacities, responsible for effecting the decision”))). Plaintiff 14 offers no persuasive argument undermining the Report’s analysis. 15 Plaintiff objects that the Report failed to consider his claims against the state 16 court under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. (Dkt. No. 34 at 15.) In 17 particular, Plaintiff argues the state court waived its immunity under the Eleventh 18 Amendment because it receives federal funding “for court improvement grants, 19 language access programs, and other initiatives.” (Id.) This is insufficient to show 20 a waiver of immunity. See Barrilleaux v. Mendocino County, 2018 WL 3585133, 21 at *32-*33 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2018 (evidence that state court received federal 22 grants to remove architectural barriers was insufficient to show waiver of Eleventh 23 Amendment immunity from Rehabilitation Act claim). Moreover, the Report 24 properly found that Plaintiff’s request for prospective relief from the state court was 25 barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. (Dkt. No. 31 at 9-10.) No exception to the Anti- 26 Injunction Act is available merely because Plaintiff raises a claim under the 27 Rehabilitation Act. See Moore v. Capital Realty Group, Inc., 2023 WL 4699915, at 28 *4-*5 (W.D. N.Y. July 24, 2023) (Anti-Injunction Act bars federal court from 1 |} enjoining an eviction, despite tenant’s allegations of violations of the ADA, the Fair 2 || Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act). 3 It is ordered that: (1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted and 4 || adopted; (2) Claims One, Two, Three, and Four are dismissed without further leave 5 || to amend; (3) Claim Two is dismissed insofar as it seeks injunctive relief; and (4) 6 || service is authorized on Defendant Rosanna Domingo as to Claim Two only. 1 : (nd. 9 Dated: December 29, 2025 HON. ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28