Dunn v. HUD / Urban Development ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALANA DUNN, Case No. 1:23-cv-01565 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS 13 v. CASE BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 HUD/URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., (Doc. 7) 15 Defendants. 16 Alana Dunn is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, which she initiated 17 by filing a complaint on November 6, 2023. (Doc. 1.) On November 28, 2023, the assigned 18 magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not state any cognizable claim. (Doc. 5 at 4–8.) Plaintiff was 19 granted thirty days in which to file an amended complaint “so that she can set forth a basis for 20 subject matter jurisdiction and specify her claims with additional factual allegations.” (Id. at 8.) 21 On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 6.) The magistrate 22 judge screened the amended complaint on January 18, 2024, and issued Findings and 23 Recommendations to dismiss the action. (Doc. 7.) The magistrate judge determined “Plaintiff’s 24 statement of her claim is difficult to understand and does not allege any specific facts giving rise 25 to liability by the named defendants.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also failed to meet the “heightened 26 pleading standard” for fraud claims, failed to “allege facts to support a finding that any defendant 27 has acted such that their conduct is fairly attributable to the government” for purposes of a claim 28 nen ee IONE OIE II IE 1 | under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that Defendant HUD was “entitled to sovereign immunity and 2 | subject to dismissal.” (/d. at 3-4.) Further, the magistrate judge noted that “Plaintiff has 3 || repeatedly demonstrated that she is unable to marshal facts sufficient to constitute a cognizable 4 | claim and that the addition of more detailed factual allegations or revision of Plaintiff's claims 5 | will not cure the defects of her amended complaint.” (/d. at 6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 6 || recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim. (d.) 7 The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections were due within 8 | 14 days. (Doc. 7 at 6.) On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed document titled “Petition for Release 9 | of Property from Lien,” which appears to contain objections directed to the Findings and 10 | Recommendations. (Doc. 8.)! 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 12 | United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court performed a de novo review of 13 | this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 14 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued January 18, 2024 (Doc. 7) are 16 ADOPTED in full. 17 2. This action is DISMISSED due to Plaintiffs failure to state a claim. 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _February 9, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 ! To the extent Plaintiff intended for her January 22, 2024 filing to be a notice of appeal or appellate brief concerning 27 | the Findings and Recommendations, this Court will not construe them as such. The Findings and Recommendations did not constitute an appealable order because they were subject to review by a district judge. This order, in contrast, 28 | constitutes a final, appealable order.