Javaheri v. United States ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 DARYOUSH JAVAHERI, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00860-GMN-EJY 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RECOMMENDATION 7 Defendant. 8 9 Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah’s Report and 10 Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 10), recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff 11 Daryoush Javaheri’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against the Department of Justice with 12 prejudice. Plaintiff filed an Objection, (ECF No. 13). 13 Plaintiff1 sues the Department of Justice for property loss in Los Angeles, California 14 under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and the Fourteenth Amendment. (Compl., ECF 15 No. 9 at 1-2, 5-6). His Complaint appears to allege that the Department of Justice did not 16 protect him from predatory lending after it received settlements from banks relating to the 2008 17 mortgage crisis. (Id. at 3). 18 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 19 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 20 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 21 determination of those portions to which objections are made. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). 22 The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the Fourteenth Amendment claim with 23 prejudice because the United States has sovereign immunity, and because the Fourteenth 24 25 1 In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court liberally construes his filings. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 1 Amendment does not apply to the federal government. (R&R 2:25–3:4, ECF No. 10). 2 Plaintiff’s Objection to the R&R does not provide any legal sources refuting these basic 3 propositions. (See generally Object., ECF No. 13). 4 Reviewing Plaintiff’s Objection and the R&R de novo, the Court agrees with the 5 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit 6 unless it has waived its immunity. See Dep’t of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255 (1999). 7 Any lawsuit against an agency of the United States is considered an action against the United 8 States. See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 268 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the 9 Department of Justice is an agency of the United States, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 10 claim is an action against the United States for which it has not waived its immunity. See 11 Balser v. Dept. of Justice, Off. Of U.S. Tr., 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the 12 federal government is not subject to suit under the Fourteenth Amendment. See San Francisco 13 Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 542 n. 21(1987) (recognizing that 14 the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to actions by a state). Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 15 Amendment claim is therefore barred, and the legal deficiencies cannot be cured through 16 amendment. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s 17 Fourteenth Amendment claim with prejudice. 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 10), is 3 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Objection, 4 (ECF No. 13), is DENIED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim is 6 || DISMISSED with prejudice. 7 Dated this 8 day of November, 2024. 8 9 GlorigM] Navarro, District Judge 11 Unit ates District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 of 3