1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY D. BELCHER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00976-DAD-JDP (PS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS 14 ROB BONTA, et al., AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 8, 11, 22, 29, 32) 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action against defendants California Attorney 18 General Rob Bonta, California Deputy Attorney General Sebastian Brady, Presiding Justice of the 19 California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District Laurie M. Earl, and Sacramento 20 County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Rockwell. In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that 21 defendants violated his constitutional rights when he was not provided a hearing and risk 22 assessment prior to being required to register as a sex offender under California law. The matter 23 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local 24 Rule 302(c)(21). 25 On April 30, 2024, a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on behalf of defendants 26 Bonta and Brady. (Doc. No. 8.) On May 1, 2024, a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on 27 behalf of defendants Earl and Rockwell. (Doc. No. 11.) On July 8, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion 28 for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 22.) 1 On November 14, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations recommending that the defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted and that 3 plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied as moot. (Doc. No. 29.) Specifically, the 4 magistrate judge concluded that: 1) plaintiff’s claims against all four defendants in their official 5 capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; 2) defendants Earl and Rockwell are entitled to 6 judicial immunity barring plaintiff’s individual capacity claims against them; 3) defendants Bonta 7 and Brady are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity as to the individual capacity claims 8 brought against them; 4) to the extent plaintiff’s claims are an attempt to seek review by this 9 federal court of state court proceedings and decisions, such claims are barred under the Rooker- 10 Feldman doctrine; 5) plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable claims for relief against the 11 named defendants; 6) ultimately, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 12 and failure to state any cognizable claims; and 7) dismissal should be without leave to amend 13 because amendment would be futile in light of the jurisdictional deficiencies of the complaint. 14 (Id. at 4–9.) 15 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 16 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 17 8.) On November 21, 2024, plaintiff timely filed his objections to the pending findings and 18 recommendations. (Doc. No. 30.) On December 5, 2024, counsel for defendants Bonta and 19 Brady filed a response to those objections. (Doc. No. 31.)1 20 In his objections, plaintiff unpersuasively argues the exception to Eleventh Amendment 21 Immunity announced in Ex parte Young,

(1908) applies. (Doc. No. 30 at 3.) As 22 counsel for defendants Earl and Brady explain in their response to plaintiff’s objections, the Ex 23 parte Young exception does not apply here. (See Doc. No. 31 at 5–6.) Plaintiff also explains in 24 his objections the efforts he has made since his criminal conviction in 1991 “to make amends, to 25 rebuild and to become and asset to [his] community” and describes the good reason he has to seek 26 a risk assessment and hearing in an attempt to continue working in his field of expertise. (Doc. 27 1 On February 18, 2025, plaintiff filed a request for status. (Doc. No. 32.) That motion will be 28 granted and this order provides the status of the action as of this date. 1 | No. 30 at 2-3, 6.) Although plaintiffs efforts in this regard and his career goals may be 2 || commendable, neither they nor the legal arguments he advances in his objections provide any 3 | basis for rejecting the detailed and appropriate legal analysis set forth in the findings and 4 | recommendations. The relief plaintiff seeks in this action against the named defendants is simply 5 | unavailable to him as a matter of law. 6 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs 8 | objections and defendants’ response thereto, the court concludes that the findings and 9 | recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued November 14, 2024 (Doc. No. 29), are 12 ADOPTED; 13 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss, (Doc. Nos. 8, 11), are GRANTED; 14 3. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 15 4. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 22), is DENIED as having been 16 rendered moot by this order; 17 5. Plaintiff's request for status (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED; and 18 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. *° | Dated: _ February 20, 2025 Da A. 2, axel 21 DALE A. DROZD 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28