Opinion
2:23-cv-03346-PA-MAR
06-30-2024
RAFAEL MARTIROSYAN, Plaintiff, v. ST. ANDRE, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PERCY ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's motions to consolidate (ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 157 in Martirosyan v. Baries, No. 2:21-cv-6433, and Dkt. 42 in Maritorysan v. St. Andre, No. 2:23-cv-3346) are GRANTED, with the consolidated case entitled as “Rafael Martirosyan v. Baries et al” and bearing the case number of the earliest filed case, 2:21-cv-6433-PA (MAR);
(2) the Motions to Dismiss the non-operative Baries Second Amended Complaint (Dkts. 77, 81, and 112 in Baries, No. 2:21-cv-6433) are DENIED as moot;
(3) the first Motion to Dismiss the operative Baries Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 141 in Baries, No. 2:21-cv-6433) is GRANTED with respect to Claims Four, Six, Eight, Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen (equal protection, due process, and access to courts claims);
(4) the first Motion to Dismiss the Baries Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 141 in Baries, No. 2:21-cv-6433) is GRANTED with respect to Claim Five (Monell claim) against the City, Defendant Garcetti, and Villanueva in his official capacity only;
(5) the first Motion to Dismiss the Baries Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 141 in Baries, No. 2:21-cv-6433) is DENIED in all other respects;
(6) the second Motion to Dismiss the Baries Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 161 in Baries, No. 2:21-cv-6433) is DENIED;
(7) the County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the operative St. Andre Compl. (Dkt. 28 in St. Andre, No. 2:23-cv-3346) is DENIED with respect to Claim Three (retaliation) against Defedant Erzkin;
(8) the County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the St. Andre Compl. (Dkt. 28 in St. Andre, No. 2:23-cv-3346) is GRANTED in all other respects;
(9) the CDCR Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the St. Andre Compl. (Dkt. 21 in St. Andre, No. 2:23-cv-3346) is GRANTED; and
(10) the City, Garcetti, the CDCR Defendants, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, LASD, Mabee, and Valdez are TERMINATED as Defendants.
Pursuant to this order, the remaining Defendants in the single consolidated action are be the County and individual County Defendants Baries, Sylva, Hayley, Mancilla, Becerra, Bernard, Ramos, Villanueva, and Erzkin, all in their individual capacities. The remaining claims are:
(1) a First Amendment claim against Erzkin (as outlined in Claim Three in the St. Andre Compl.) and against Hayley, Baries, Sylva, and Ramos (as outlined in Claims Three and Nine in the Baries Third Amended Complaint);
(2) an Eighth Amendment claim against Hayley, Baries, Sylva, Beccerra, Bernard, Ramos, Mancilla, and Villanueva (as outlined in Claims One, Two, Five, Seven, and Ten in the Baries Third Amended Complaint); and
(3) an Eighth Amendment Monell claim against the County (as outlined in Claim Five of the Baries Third Amended Complaint).