Ivan Rene Moore v. Michelle Rosenblatt et al

Filing 55

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II for Report and Recommendation (Final) 49 . Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint against Defendant Bragg consistent with the Amended Report and Recommendation and this Order within 30 days of this Order. (See order for details) (ec)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IVAN RENE MOORE,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 2:15-cv-8021-ODW (GJS)

Plaintiff
v.
MICHELLE ROSENBLATT et al.,
Defendants.

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”) and all pleadings, motions, and other documents filed in this

19

action, the Amended Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

20

Judge (“Amended Report”), Plaintiff’s Objections to the Amended Report, and

21

Judicial Defendants’ Reply, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R.

22

Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the

23

Report to which objections have been stated.

24

In Plaintiff’s Objections to the Amended Report, he proffers a new purported

25

basis for finding the judicial immunity doctrine inapplicable to the various

26

California Superior Court judge Defendants, based on recent developments in

27

Plaintiff’s many state court cases. The Court has considered this “new” evidence

28

and concludes that it does not change the Court’s finding that all alleged improper

1

acts fall clearly within the scope of judicial function, and thus, within the judicial

2

immunity doctrine. The Court has also considered Plaintiff’s Objections regarding

3

Clerk Jasper, which rehash the arguments made in his Opposition Brief. The Court

4

finds these arguments to be unpersuasive.1 Having completed its review, the Court

5

concludes that nothing in the Objections affects or alters the analysis and

6

conclusions set forth in the Report.

7
8

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

9

(1) Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the FAC [Dkts. 20 & 21] are GRANTED as

10

follows:

11

a) the FAC’s federal claims against Judicial Defendants Fruin, Rosenblatt,

12

Meiers, Beaudet, Buckley, Shaller, Johnson, Raphael, and Jasper are

13

dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims against them are

14

dismissed without prejudice;

15

b) the FAC’s claims against Defendant Bragg are dismissed with leave to

16

amend; and

17

c) the FAC’s claims against the Unserved Los Angeles Defendants and

18

Doe Defendants are dismissed without prejudice;

19

(2) all pending motions are DENIED as moot; and

20

///

21

///

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In the underlying briefing, the Judicial Defendants argued that the Court lacks
jurisdiction over the case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits
“state-court losers” from challenging “state-court judgments rendered before the
district court proceedings commenced.” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006).
The Court has not addressed the Rooker-Feldman issue, because judicial immunity
clearly applies here and bars Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants. However,
the Court notes that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine may provide an independent
reason for dismissal of these Defendants.
2

1

(3) Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint against

2

Defendant Bragg consistent with the Amended Report and Recommendation

3

and this Order within 30 days of this Order.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

DATE: _November 16, 2016

__________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3