1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No.: 25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP MARIAN ANTHONY, JASMINE

11 JOHANESEN, ORDER: 12 Plaintiffs, v. (1) DENYING REQUEST FOR 13 STATUS CONFERENCE [ECF No. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 14 29]; Defendants. 15 (2) DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY 16 OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT [ECF No. 29]; 17

18 (3) DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ 19 RESPONSE and MOTION FOR 20 SANCTIONS [ECF No. 30];

21 (4) DENYING MOTION FOR 22 RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION [ECF No. 31]; 23

24 (5) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [ECF No. 32]; and 25

26

27

28 1 (6) DENYING MOTION TO REFER MATTER TO DISTRICT 2 ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND 3 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [ECF No. 33] 4

5 Before the Court are several motions filed by Pro Se Plaintiffs Marian Anthony and 6 Jasmine Johanesen. The present Order addresses four of the pending motions, (ECF Nos. 7 29, 31–33), with the other motions to be addressed in separate orders.1 8 Before addressing the merits of each motion, the Court first acknowledges that 9 Plaintiffs’ motions are missing a hearing date and time. The Southern District of 10 California’s Civil Local Rule 5.1(i)(4) requires the date and time of a hearing on the cover 11 page of each motion. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 5.1(i)(4). A motion requires a hearing date because 12 the hearing date sets the briefing schedule for a response to and reply in support of any 13 given motion. The undersigned judge requires parties to obtain a hearing date by calling 14 the Law Clerk—otherwise a “hearing date will not be reserved.” Civil Pretrial & Trial 15 Procedures of Judge Dana M. Sabraw, rule 6(B). Plaintiffs have already been instructed to 16 comply on this same issue. (See ECF No. 26, at 2–3). Continued failure to comply may 17 result in a denial of Plaintiffs’ motions without reaching the merits. 18 I. REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE [ECF No. 29] 19 Plaintiffs request a status conference or case management conference due to 20 “inaction,” but state no legal basis for this request. (ECF No. 29, at 1). Further, the Court 21 finds that a status conference is unnecessary at this juncture. Plaintiffs’ request is therefore 22 DENIED. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 26 27 1 Often times, Plaintiffs include several requests within one motion. For example, Plaintiffs’ motion for status conference or case management conference includes a motion for entry of default and default 28 1 II. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND 2 DEFAULT JUDGMENT [ECF No. 29] 3 Plaintiffs also move for entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) 4 and default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). (Id. at 2). Plaintiffs 5 argue that entry of default and default judgment are warranted because “Defendants have 6 failed to file a formal answer to the complaint after their motion to dismiss.” (Id.). 7 Defendant the County of San Diego (“County”) timely filed a motion to dismiss. (See ECF 8 No. 10). Thus, the County was not required to file an answer. Farmer v. Las Vegas Metro. 9 Police Dep’t,

, 1016 (D. Nev. 2019). In addition, according to the 10 County, the individual defendants have not been served, (ECF No. 10-1, at 10 n.2), which 11 means the individual defendants are not yet required to answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 12 Further, this Court dismissed the original Complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend; 13 thus, there is no operative Complaint for the Defendants to answer. (See ECF No. 34). As 14 such, Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default and for default judgment is DENIED. 15 III. MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE and 16 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [ECF No. 30] 17 Plaintiffs move to compel Defendants’ response, “as Defendants have failed to 18 answer the complaint.” (ECF No. 30, at 1–2). Plaintiffs also request sanctions for this 19 delay. (Id. at 2). For the reasons stated above, see supra Section II, the Court DENIES 20 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and motion for sanctions. 21 IV. MOTION FOR RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION [ECF No. 31] 22 This case came before the Court after being transferred to the undersigned judge on 23 July 2, 2025. (ECF No. 27). On September 17, 2025, Plaintiffs moved for the recusal of 24 the previously assigned judge, Chief Judge Bashant. (ECF No. 31). Because this case is 25 26 27 28 1 now before the undersigned judge, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal or 2 disqualification as moot.2 3 V. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [ECF No. 32] 4 Plaintiffs also filed a petition for writ of mandamus, to “compel the granting on 5 pending motions.”3 Plaintiffs argue that the “District Court’s inaction since July 9, 2025, 6 on Plaintiffs’ amended motion constitutes [abandonment].” (ECF No. 32, at 2). This 7 action came before the Court after being transferred to the undersigned judge on July 2, 8 2025. (ECF No. 27). Since, this Court ruled on Plaintiffs’ July 9, 2025 motion, (ECF No. 9 28). (See ECF No. 43). The Court also ruled on the County’s motion to dismiss. (See 10 ECF No. 34). Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Petition as being moot. 11 VI. MOTION TO REFER MATTER [ECF No. 33] 12 Plaintiffs move the Court to “refer the matter to the San Diego County District 13 Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution and to the United States Department for Justice 14 for investigation and potential enforcement action.” (ECF No. 33, at 2). Plaintiffs argue 15 that the Court has “inherent authority” to take such an action under

and 16

. However, “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute 17 discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” United States v. Nixon,

, 18 693 (1974). The Court cannot direct either the San Diego County District Attorney’s 19 Office or the United States Department for Justice to open an investigation or prosecute 20 cases. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED. 21 VII. CONCLUSION 22 The Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 23 (1) Plaintiffs’ request for a status conference is DENIED (ECF No. 29); 24 25 2 In the same filing, Plaintiffs also move to preserve evidence. This motion will be addressed in a separate 26 order.

27 3 In the same filing, Plaintiffs also request a writ of mandamus to compel “the State of California to release the sealed search warrant issued by Judge Kathleen M. Lewis on August 9, 2022.” (ECF No. 32, at 2). 28 1 (2) Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default and default judgment is DENIED (ECF 2 No. 29); 3 (3) Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendants’ response to the Complaint and 4 motion for sanctions are DENIED (ECF No. 30); 5 (4) Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal or disqualification of Chief Judge Bashant is 6 DENIED as moot (ECF No. 31); 7 (5) Plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED (ECF No. 32); and 8 (6) Plaintiffs’ motion to refer this matter to the San Diego County District 9 Attorney’s Office and the United States Department of Justice is DENIED 10 (ECF No. 33). 11 The Court further ORDERS the parties to limit each filing to one motion. 12 || Dated: December 3, 2025 \ é | 13 . Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28