Opinion
2:23-cv-02563-FLA (DTB)
09-20-2024
PRESTON D. PERKINS, JR., Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN DELGADILLO, et al. Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 19, all the records and files herein, the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), Dkt. 119 (“R&R”), and Plaintiff Preston D. Perkins, Jr.'s (“Plaintiff”) objections thereto, Dkt. 124 (“Obj.'s”). The Report recommends dismissal of the First Amended Complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint as to Defendant Arzviek Moradian (“Moradian”).
R&R. Plaintiff's objections to the Report do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendation. See Obj.'s.
First, Plaintiff objects that Defendant Helen Kim (“Kim”) is not shielded by prosecutorial immunity because she signed a falsified criminal complaint and committed other acts of misconduct. Obj.'s at 2-3, 6-8. The court, however, concurs with the Report that Kim is entitled to prosecutorial immunity for the alleged acts, as each act was taken within the scope of prosecutorial duties. See R&R at 16-18. As the Report explains, prosecutorial immunity covers alleged acts that even include malicious prosecution, falsification of evidence, coercion of perjured testimony, and concealment of exculpatory evidence. Id. at 17.
Moreover, Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint does not cure these deficiencies. See id. at 28-29. Thus, further amendment would be futile.
Second, Plaintiff objects that Moradian rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by coercing Plaintiff into a judicial diversion agreement and committing other acts of misconduct. Obj.'s at 3, 8-12. The court concurs with the Report that Plaintiff's allegations in the First Amended Complaint as to Defendant Moradian are conclusory and vague, but that Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend. R&R at 18-19. Plaintiff may reassert his allegations as to Moradian in a Second Amended Complaint. Id. at 19.
Third, Plaintiff objects that the Report improperly excluded audio recordings. Obj.'s at 3. The Magistrate Judge, however, properly excluded the audio recordings because Plaintiff did not timely serve them on Defendants as required by Local Rule 79-5.3. Dkts. 114, 116.
Fourth, Plaintiff objects that Defendant the State of California (“California”) is liable for his injuries arising from malicious prosecution and unlawful searches. Obj.'s at 3-6. The court concurs with the Report that Plaintiff's allegations against California are deficient in multiple respects: Plaintiff has not alleged jurisdiction, California is immune under the Eleventh Amendment from damages claims, and Plaintiff has not stated a claim. R&R at 11-15. Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint does not cure these deficiencies. See id. at 27-28. Thus, further amendment would be futile.
Last, Plaintiff objects that he has cognizable claims against officers of the Los Angeles Police Department. Obj.'s at 12-18. This objection is not responsive to the Report, which did not analyze Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant police officers.
In sum, having reviewed de novo the portions of the Report to which objections have been made, the court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The court, therefore, ORDERS as follows:
(1) California's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 49, is GRANTED, and all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) claims alleged against the State of California are DISMISSED without leave to amend;
(2) Kim's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 56, is GRANTED, and the Section 1983 claims alleged against Kim are DISMISSED without leave to amend on the basis of prosecutorial immunity;
(3) Moradian's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 29, is GRANTED and the Section 1983 claims and state law claims alleged against Moradian are DISMISSED with leave to amend;
(4) Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, Dkt. 85, is DENIED.
(5) If Plaintiff still desires to pursue this action, he is ordered to file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, eliminating California and Kim as defendants, and remedying the other deficiencies discussed in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.