1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL FLETCHER, Case No. 2:24-cv-11084-JWH(E)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

13 v. CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED

14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHILD STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUPPORT SERVICES DEPT.,

15 Defendant. 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 2 Complaint, all of the records herein and the attached Report and 3 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has 4 engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and 5 Recommendation to which any objections have been made. 6 In this action, Plaintiff seeks to challenge various alleged efforts by 7 Defendant’s agents and employees to collect child support from Plaintiff. [ECF 8 No. 26 at 13.] The Report recommends the dismissal of the First Amended 9 Complaint without further leave to amend and the dismissal of this action without 10 prejudice. [ECF No. 36.] Plaintiff’s objections to the Report [ECF No. 37] do not 11 merit any change to the Report’s proposed findings or recommendations. 12 Plaintiff objects that Defendant’s child support actions violated a 13 bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362. [ECF No. 37 at 1-23, 31-34, & 38-42.] 14 As the Report correctly found, however, the Court does not review claims 15 alleging violations of a bankruptcy stay. [ECF No. 36 at 6.] Specifically, General 16 Order 13-05 of the Central District of California refers all matters under Title 11 17 of the United States Code to the bankruptcy judges of the district. The 18 authorities relied upon by Plaintiff are not from the Central District of California. 19 [ECF No. 37 at 1, 2, 8, 11, & 31.] In the Central District of California, a claim 20 alleging a violation of an automatic bankruptcy stay is to be raised before the 21 bankruptcy court. See In re Orchid Child Productions, LLC, 2023 WL 5770321, 22 at *4 (9th Cir. BAP Sept. 7, 2023) (28 U.S.C. § 157(a) “permits the district court 23 to refer to the bankruptcy court any cases and proceedings that are within the 24 grant of bankruptcy jurisdiction. The Central District of California has exercised 25 this authority.”) (citing General Order 13-05); see also Forbes v. Bank of 26 America, N.A., 2017 WL 6043082, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2017) (dismissing 27 “claims based on the automatic stay violation theory” because they should be 1 WL 13918078, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2015) (based upon General 2 Order 13-05 and other authorities, “courts in this district have generally 3 determined they lack jurisdiction to hear claims for violations of an automatic 4 stay”) (citing cases). 5 Plaintiff objects that he stated a claim based upon Defendant’s alleged 6 violation of Plaintiff’s equal protection rights and alleged retaliation against 7 Plaintiff based upon Plaintiff’s gender. [ECF No. 37 at 23-31 & 34-38.] As the 8 Report correctly found, however, Plaintiff failed to allege any facts from which it 9 can be reasonably inferred that a policy, custom, or practice was the moving 10 force behind the alleged federal violations. [ECF No. 36 at 7-8.] Plaintiff alleges 11 only unlawful treatment in his own case, which is insufficient to allege a policy, 12 custom, or practice. See Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996) 13 (“Liability for improper custom may not be predicated on isolated or sporadic 14 incidents; it must be founded upon practices of sufficient duration, frequency and 15 consistency that the conduct has become a traditional method of carrying out 16 that policy.”). Thus, Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the County under 17 Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). 18 For those reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 19 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED 20 and ADOPTED. 21 2. The Motion for Judgment is DENIED. 22 3. Judgment shall be entered DISMISSING the First Amended 23 Complaint without leave to amend and without prejudice. 24 25 26 27 1 4. — The Clerk is DIRECTED forthwith to serve copies of this Order and 2 | the Judgment on Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel of record. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: April 21 , 2025. 6 seman 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28