Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01378/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01378-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOMAN AHMAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-01378-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE 

ENTRY OF DEFAULT, GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS, 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT

(Doc. Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17, 25, 27, 33, 40)

Plaintiff Noman Ahmad is an individual proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 4, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the motion to set aside entry of default filed by certain of the defendants 

(Doc. No. 17) be granted, that defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 13, 14, 15, 25, 27) also 

be granted, and that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 33) be denied. 

(Doc. No. 40.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that certain of plaintiff’s claims were

barred by the Eleventh Amendment, that plaintiff had failed to sufficiently allege any of his 

Case 2:23-cv-01378-DAD-JDP Document 41 Filed 03/29/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

claims, and that leave to amend would be futile as to certain of plaintiff’s claims. (Id. at 7–13.) 

The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint 

be denied because plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint was nearly identical to his first 

amended complaint and suffered from the same deficiencies already noted in the findings and 

recommendations.

Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 14.) No 

party has filed any objections, and the time to do so has passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 4, 2024 (Doc. No. 40) are 

adopted in full;

2. The motion to set aside entry of default filed by defendants Kelly Stonehouse, 

Lacie Stonehouse, Steven Stonehouse, Jose Rodriguez, and El Concilio, LLC 

(Doc. No. 17) is granted;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set aside the entry of default (see Doc. 

No. 12) as to those defendants;

4. Defendant Brandon Riley’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is granted, without 

leave to amend;

5. Defendants El Concilio, LLC and Jose Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 

No. 14) is granted, with leave to amend also being granted;

6. Defendants Kelly Stonehouse, Lacie Stonehouse, and Steven Stonehouse’s motion 

to dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is granted, with leave to amend also being granted;

7. Defendant Martin Hoshino’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 25) is granted, without 

leave to amend;

/////

Case 2:23-cv-01378-DAD-JDP Document 41 Filed 03/29/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

8. Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is granted, 

without leave to amend;

9. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendants 

Brandon Riley, Martin Hoshino, and Governor Gavin Newsom have been 

terminated as named defendants in this action;

10. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 33) is denied; and

11. Within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order, plaintiff shall file either 

a second amended complaint, or a notice of his intent not to file a second amended 

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01378-DAD-JDP Document 41 Filed 03/29/24 Page 3 of 3