Phil Jennerjahn v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 35

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 34 . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. (See order for details) (ec)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PHIL JENNERJAHN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. CV 15-00263-JFW (GJS)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

16
17

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended

18

Complaint (“FAC”), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 29, “Motion”] and

19

all related filings, all pleadings and other documents filed in this action, and the

20

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). The

21

time for filing Objections to the Report has passed, and no Objections have been

22

filed by any party.

23
24

The Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED as follows:

25

(1) the FAC’s claim that the Ordinance facially violates the Fourteenth

26

Amendment Due Process Clause, because it is unconstitutionally

27

vague, is dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice;

28

1

(2) the FAC’s claim that the Ordinance facially violates Section 2 of the

2

Voting Rights Act of 1965 and constitutes an improper “test or device”

3

is dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction;

4

(3) the FAC’s claim that the Ordinance facially violates the Equal

5

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because it grants

6

voters who live, work, or own property in multiple neighborhoods more

7

voting power and disenfranchises voters who do not live, work, or own

8

property in the neighborhood, is dismissed without leave to amend and

9

with prejudice;

10

(4) the FAC’s Section 1983 claim that the City (through Cantu, acting in

11

his official capacity) arbitrarily discriminated against Jennerjahn when,

12

in applying the Ordinance, it kept Jennerjahn him the ballot and from

13

voting, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

14

Amendment is dismissed with leave to amend;

15

(5) the FAC’s Section 1983 claim that the City (through Cantu, acting in

16

his official capacity) violated Jennerjahn’s rights under the Due Process

17

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by disqualifying him as a

18

voter/candidate is dismissed without leave to amend;

19

(6) the FAC’s Section 1983 claim that the City (through Cantu, acting in

20

his official capacity) retaliated against Jennerjahn for exercising his

21

First Amendment right of political speech is dismissed with leave to

22

amend; and

23

(7) Jennerjahn is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint

24

consistent with the Report and Recommendation within 30 days of this

25

Order.

26
27
28

DATED: April 5, 2016.

__________________________________
JOHN F. WALTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2