Maryann Watkins et al v. California Department of Housing and Community Development

Filing 75

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha for ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING P LAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT [DKTS. 51, 61, 69]. IT IS ORDERED that: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted; Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants are dismissed without prejudice; and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See attached) (edr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARYANN WATKINS, et al.,

12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.

14
15
16

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, et al.,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-07286-FLA (RAO)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS
MOOT [DKTS. 51, 61, 69]

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Third Amended

2

Complaint (“TAC”), Dkt. 46, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the TAC, Dkt. No. 51,

3

Plaintiffs’ Opposition, Dkt. 55, Defendants’ Reply, Dkt. No. 57, Plaintifffs’ Motion

4

for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 61, Defendants’ Opposition, Dkt. No. 62, Plaintiffs’

5

Reply, Dkt. 68, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

6

(“Report”) dated January 10, 2025, Dkt. 69, Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report, Dkt.

7

73, and all other records and files herein.

8

The court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to

9

which Plaintiffs have objected. The Report recommends the dismissal of Plaintiffs’

10

Third Amended Complaint without further leave to amend. Dkt. 69. The Third

11

Amended Complaint alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights based on

12

Defendants’ delay of Plaintiffs’ plans to build a manufactured home in Los Angeles

13

County. Dkt. 46 at 6, 8. Plaintiffs’ objections to the Report, Dkt. 73, do not

14

warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendations.

15

Plaintiffs object to the Report’s finding that they have failed to state a claim

16

on which relief may be granted. Dkt. 73 at 1–2. They object that Defendants held

17

up the permit, refused to grant the permit, and could have performed the inspection

18

or plan check under the standards of the Department of Housing and Urban

19

Development. Id. These objections do not call into question the Report’s finding

20

that such allegations do not raise a plausible basis for a claim under the First,

21

Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments. Dkt. 69 at 8. Plaintiffs also failed to

22

state a Fifth Amendment claim for a regulatory taking, because they do not allege

23

they were required to pay a fee or fund offsite work or improvements. Id. at 9–10.

24

They also failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for a violation of due

25

process. Id. at 10–11.

26

Plaintiffs object to the Report’s finding that the claims against the California

27

Department of Housing and Community Development and the official-capacity

28

claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. 73 at 3–6. The objections,
2

1

which are based on conclusory allegations of perjury, fraud, and bribery, raise no

2

grounds to call into question the Report’s Eleventh Amendment analysis. Dkt. 69

3

at 6–7.

4

Finally, Plaintiffs object there has been judicial misconduct that resulted in a

5

“fraud on the court.” Dkt. 73 at 7–15. Plaintiffs allege federal judges throughout

6

the Ninth Circuit are being paid for their decisions. Id. at 7–8, 11. They also

7

object, “God willing you will all be prosecuted for such hyenas’ crimes.” Id. at 11.

8

These allegations are dismissed as frivolous and malicious. See Theriault v. Silver,

9

574 F.2d 197, 197 (5th Cir. 1978) (order) (insulting and disrespectful references to

10

the judge are subject to summary dismissal as beneath the dignity of the court).

11

The court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ objections and overrules them. The

12

court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of

13

the Magistrate Judge.

14

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

15

(1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted;

16

(2) Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are dismissed without prejudice; and

17

(3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23

Dated: March 11, 2025

_______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3