1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREN BENDANA, Case No. 8:25-cv-01310-SSS-AJR

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED

14 COUNTY OF ORANGE, ET AL., STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Defendants. 16

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the motions to dismiss, all the 18 records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and 20 Recommendation (the “Objections”), Defendants’ Response to the Objections, and 21 Plaintiff’s Request that the Court Consider Her Objections in Full. The Court has also 22 conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to 23 which Plaintiff objected. 24 The Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommends that the dismissal of 25 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. [Dkt. 38]. Plaintiff’s 26 objections [Dkt. 40] do not merit any change to the Report’s findings or 27 recommendations. 28 1 The gravamen of Plaintiff’s objections is that subject matter jurisdiction in the state 2 court was lacking under the California Family Code to conduct the underlying family-law 3 proceedings involving Plaintiff and her child. [Dkt. 40 at 2-9]. On the contrary, 4 according to Plaintiff’s own allegations, the biological father of the child filed a “father’s 5 private petition” with the state court. Id. at 4. Thus, the state court had subject matter 6 jurisdiction. See V.S. v. M.L., 222 Cal. App. 4th 730, 734-35 (2013) (“‘an action to 7 determine the existence of the father and child relationship may be brought’ by several 8 categories of persons, including ‘a man alleged or alleging himself to be the father’”) 9 (quoting Cal. Family Code § 7630(c)). 10 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that Defendant Judge Solis is entitled to 11 judicial immunity and that Defendants Jacobs, Ridlon, and Hartman are entitled to 12 prosecutorial immunity. [Dkt. 40 at 9-16]. The objections are misplaced because they are 13 based on the erroneous premise that Judge Solis acted without subject matter jurisdiction. 14 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that her claims implicate the Younger 15 abstention doctrine and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. [Dkt. 40 at 16-26]. The objections 16 likewise are misplaced because they are based on the erroneous premise that subject 17 matter jurisdiction in state court was lacking. 18 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that her First Amended Complaint 19 otherwise fails to state a viable claim. [Dkt. 40 at 26-28]. The Court agrees with the 20 Report that, from the First Amended Complaint, “Plaintiff’s allegations against 21 Defendants are largely conclusory and fail to specify each defendant’s conduct.” [Dkt. 38 22 at 19; see also Dkt. 5]. 23 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that she has failed to state a Fourth 24 Amendment claim based on the seizure of her child. [Dkt. 40 at 28-32]. The Court agrees 25 with the Report, which cites several authorities to conclude that Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, 26 may not vicariously assert her child’s Fourth Amendment rights. [Dkt. 38 at 22]. 27 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that she has failed to state a Fourteenth 28 Amendment claim. [Dkt. 40 at 32-34]. The Court agrees with the Report that the 1 judicially noticed record shows that Plaintiff received notice and an opportunity to be 2 heard in the custody dispute, and that the removal of the child was executed pursuant to a 3 protective custody warrant authorized by the family court. [Dkt. 38 at 24; see also Dkt. 1 4 at 78-79, 86-87]. Plaintiff’s objection that the state court lacked authority to conduct such 5 proceedings is based on the erroneous premise that Judge Solis acted without subject 6 matter jurisdiction. 7 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that she has failed to state a Ninth 8 Amendment claim. [Dkt. 40 at 34-37]. The Court agrees with the Report that the Ninth 9 Amendment does not independently secure any constitutional rights for purposes of 10 pursuing a civil rights claim. [Dkt. 38 at 24]. 11 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that she has failed to state a civil 12 conspiracy claim. [Dkt. 40 at 37-39]. The Court agrees with the Report that Plaintiff 13 failed to allege a conspiracy in a non-conclusory manner and failed to allege any class- 14 based or invidiously discriminatory animus behind Defendants’ alleged actions. [Dkt. 38 15 at 25]. The First Amended Complaint merely alleged in a conclusory manner that 16 Defendants “acted in concert” and engaged in “a coordinated pattern of abuse and intent 17 to deprive Plaintiff of equal protection under the law.” [Dkt. 5 at 9]. 18 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that she has failed to state a claim under 19 Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). [Dkt. 40 at 20 39-42]. The Court agrees with the Report that the First Amended Complaint identifies no 21 policy, practice, or custom of the County of Orange that caused her alleged injury. [Dkt. 22 38 at 27; see also Dkt. 5 at 10]. The Court also agrees with the Report that the County of 23 Orange cannot be liable based on the conduct of prosecutors who represent the state, 24 which is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. [Dkt. 38 at 27-28]. 25 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that she fails to state a Section 1983 26 supervisor liability claim against the prosecutor Defendants in their individual capacities. 27 [Dkt. 40 at 42-45]. The Court agrees with the Report that the First Amended Complaint 28 fails to allege facts permitting a plausible inference that the two prosecutorial supervisors, 1 Jacobs and Hartman, had actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s custody proceedings, directed 2 any unconstitutional act, or implemented any policy that caused the alleged harm. [Dkt. 3 38 at 28-29; see also Dkt. 5 at 4]. Although Plaintiff objects that the supervisors knew 4 jurisdiction had not been established [Dkt. 40 at 43], the objection is based on the 5 erroneous premise that Judge Solis acted without subject matter jurisdiction. 6 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that she cannot obtain punitive damages 7 against the County of Orange or the prosecutor Defendants. [Dkt. 40 at 45-46]. The 8 Court agrees with the Report that municipalities and public entities are immune from 9 punitive damages. [Dkt. 38 at 29]. To the extent that Plaintiff objects that punitive 10 damages should be available against Defendants in their personal capacities for their 11 “ultra vires action” [Dkt. 40 at 46], Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because it is based 12 on the erroneous premise that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking. 13 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that the First Amended Complaint should 14 be dismissed without leave to amend. [Dkt. 40 at 46-47]. The Court agrees that leave to 15 amend is not warranted for several reasons. [Dkt. 38 at 30-31]. Plaintiff’s claims are 16 barred by judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, 17 Younger abstention, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. 18 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s analysis that her request for a temporary restraining 19 order and preliminary injunction should be denied. [Dkt. 40 at 50-52]. The Court agrees 20 with the Report that Plaintiff has not shown entitlement to such relief because she cannot 21 possibly state a viable federal claim based on the facts alleged. [Dkt. 38 at 32]. 22 Having conducted a de novo review, Plaintiff’s Objections do not cause this Court 23 to alter or modify the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court accepts and 24 adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 25 IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the motions to dismiss filed by Judge Solis and the 26 County Defendants are GRANTED [Dkts. 12, 14]; (2) the requests for judicial notice filed 27 by Plaintiff and the County Defendants are GRANTED [Dkts. 15, 20, 24]; (3) Plaintiff’s 28 motion for leave to file a sur-reply is GRANTED [Dkts. 29–30]; (4) Plaintiff’s First 1 || Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND [Dkt. 5]; (5) 2 || Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is 3 || DENIED [Dkt. 34]; and (6) this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the 5 || Judgment herein on Plaintiff at Plaintiff's current address of record, as well as all parties 6 || who have appeared in the action. 7 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 8 9 10 || DATED: January 5, 2026 11 12 HON. SUNSHINE ANNE SYKES 1B UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28