Opinion
8:23-01071-JAK (ADSx)
03-19-2024
DANIEL ESCAMILLA, Plaintiff, v. RICARDO LARA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
John A. Kronstadt United States District Judge
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Defendant Ricardo Lara's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30), Defendant Kimberly Kirchmeyer's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 35), Plaintiff's oppositions to the motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 33, 43), all supporting filings (Dkt. Nos. 31, 34, 44-47, 49), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 54), the Supplemental Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 55), and Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 56.)
The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections were made and overrules the objections. Plaintiff's Objections argue that Plaintiff's claims are now ripe, and amendment would not be futile, because of two pieces of evidence that were not before the Magistrate Judge: (1) Defendants “unlawfully compiled an expansive dossier on his protected First Amendment activity”; and (2) Defendants “granted licenses to other applicants who submitted identical insurance certificates while arbitrarily denying Plaintiff's application on the grounds that his insurance policy did not meet the statutory requirement.” (Id. at 4.) However, Plaintiff's Objections also attach documents reflecting that Defendants notified Plaintiff that his application received closer review because Plaintiff admitted he withheld material facts from the insurer from whom he obtained the coverage and as a result, was non-compliant. (Dkt. No. 56, Exs. 1-2.) Plaintiff does not allege that other applicants also chose to omit material information when obtaining their insurance policies. Plaintiff's new facts do not ripen his claims or provide a factual basis that survives rational basis review. See Crownholm v. Moore, 652 F.Supp.3d 1155, 1171 (E.D. Cal. 2023), aff'd, No. 23-15138, 2024 WL 977676 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2024) (dismissing equal protection claim because plaintiffs did not adequately allege that other similarly situated groups violated a statute that plaintiffs did but faced no repercussions). As such, further amendment would be futile. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 54) and the Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 55) are accepted;
2. Defendant Ricardo Lara's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is granted;
3. Defendant Kimberly Kirchmeyer's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 35) is granted;
4. Defendant Ricardo Lara's Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 31) is denied;
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. No. 49) is denied;
6. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and
7. Judgment is to be entered accordingly.