1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRESTON D. PERKINS, JR., Case No. 2:23-cv-02563-FLA (DTBx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JONATHAN DELGADILLO, et al., [DKT. 192] AND GRANTING 15 Defendants. DEFENDANT MORADIAN’S 16 MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. 145] 17

18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to

, the court has reviewed the Third Amended 2 Complaint (Dkt. 144), all the records and files therein, and the Report and 3 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 192, the “Report”). The 4 Report recommends the court grant Defendant Arzviek Moradian’s (“Moradian”) 5 Motion to Dismiss without further leave to amend. Dkt. 145. On June 17, 2025, 6 Plaintiff Preston D. Perkins, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed Objections to the Report and 7 Recommendation (Dkt. 197, “Objections”). Moradian filed a Reply to Objections 8 (Dkt. 198, “Reply”) on June 17, 2025. Having made a de novo determination of those 9 portions of the Report to which objections have been made, the court concurs with and 10 accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 11 The Report recommends the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Moradian, a 12 deputy public defender who represented Plaintiff in a criminal action, for failure to 13 state a claim. Dkt. 192 (“R. & R.”) at 5–6. Plaintiff’s Objections do not merit any 14 change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 15 Plaintiff objects that the Report ignored Tower v. Glover,

(1984), 16 in its analysis. Dkt. 197 (“Obj.”) at 10. In Tower, the Supreme Court held that state 17 public defenders were not immune from liability under

for 18 intentional misconduct, under color of state law, by virtue of alleged conspiratorial 19 action with state officials that deprives their clients of federal rights. Tower,

. The court agrees with the Report that Plaintiff’s allegations of a conspiracy, in 21 the Third Amended Complaint, are merely legal conclusions and suppositions, 22 without factual support. R. & R. at 17; see also Dkt. 144 at 6. Plaintiff has not 23 offered any facts to support a conspiracy between Moradian and anyone else.

24 Plaintiff objects that Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 was satisfied and that the Report ignored 25 verified evidence. Obj. at 10–11. The court agrees with the Report that the 26 allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are not simple, concise, and direct. Dkt. 27 192 at 15; see also Dkt. 144. Plaintiff has failed to allege clearly what actions by 28 Moradian violated Plaintiff’s civil rights.

As to the alleged evidence, which 1 | consists of audio recordings of telephone calls between Plaintiff and Moradian, the 2 | Report accepted as true Plaintiffs descriptions of the alleged content of those 3 | conversations. R. & R. at 8n. 11. 4 Plaintiff objects that “Moradian breached her constitutional and fiduciary duty.” 5 | Obj. at 11. The court agrees with the Report that Moradian was not a state actor at the 6 | time she served as Plaintiffs public defender, and that Plaintiffs allegations relate to 7 || Moradian’s performance of traditional functions as a public defender. R. & R. at 16; 8 | see also Dkt. 144. 9 Plaintiff objects the Report’s procedural ruling is designed to evade the merits. 10 | Obj. at 11-12. On the contrary, the court and the parties cannot proceed to the merits 11 | claim if Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient factual allegations to support it. 12 Plaintiff objects he was denied leave to amend. /d. at 12. On the contrary, 13 | Plaintiff amended his Complaint three times. Dkts. 19, 126, 144. The court agrees 14 | with the Report that further amendment would be futile. R. & R. at 24; see also Espy 15 | v. JS Glob., Inc.,

, 542 (9th Cir. 2024) (affirming denial of further leave to 16 | amend where Plaintiff had previously been granted two chances, “since it was clear 17 | that [he] had made [his] best case and had been found wanting.’’). 18 The court, having considered the Report, Plaintiff's Objections, and Moravian’s 19 | Reply, and finding good cause therefor, hereby ADOPTS the Report and GRANTS 20 | Moravian’s Motion to Dismiss. All

claims alleged against 21 | Moravian are DISMISSED without leave to amend. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 | Dated: July 9, 2025 FERNANDO'L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 27 28