Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00259/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00259-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

JUNHO HYON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL 

PERFORMANCE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-259-KJM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

On February 6, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on February 21, 

2020, and they were considered by the undersigned. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 6, 2020, are adopted; 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-00259-KJM-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 2
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 

 2. Plaintiff’s second amended1 complaint (ECF Nos. 10) is dismissed without leave to 

amend; and 

3. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 

DATED: March 11, 2020. 

1

 The magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations concluded that the second 

amended complaint’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because plaintiff seeks 

to challenge state court orders. ECF No. 17. Shortly after the finding and recommendations 

issued, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. ECF No. 19. The limited allegations in that 

complaint fail to state a claim for relief, nor do they establish subject matter jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, there is no basis for allowing plaintiff to proceed on the third amended complaint. 

Case 2:19-cv-00259-KJM-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 2