Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01427/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01427-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Henry E. Diaz II
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY E. DIAZ, II,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-01427-KES-EPG 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS 

CASE WITH PREJUDICE AND TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AS MOOT

Docs. 7, 11

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT

Docs. 12, 13

Plaintiff Henry E. Diaz II proceeds pro se in this civil case, which is purportedly brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 

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

On December 16, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this case be dismissed, with prejudice and without leave

to amend, because the complaint, premised on sovereign citizen ideology, is so meritless that the 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 11 at 5-6. Alternatively, the magistrate judge noted 

that dismissal is warranted based on the lack of an attorney representative given that plaintiff 

appears to attempt to bring suit on behalf of a corporation. Id. at 6-7. The magistrate judge also

recommended that Diaz’s partial motion for summary judgment (Doc. 7) be denied given the 

Case 1:24-cv-01427-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 01/13/25 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

court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, given the lack of attorney representation, and given that 

a motion for summary judgment is premature as the defendant in this case has not yet been served 

or appeared and no discovery has ensued. Doc. 11 at 7.

After the findings and recommendations were entered, Diaz filed another similar motion 

for summary judgment and a motion to appoint counsel. Docs. 12, 13. Diaz also filed timely 

objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 14. 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 

this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes that the findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Diaz’s objections do not undermine the analysis of the findings and recommendations. 

For the reasons stated in the findings and recommendations, the claims in the complaint are 

meritless regardless of whether Diaz or his purported corporation is the plaintiff. Diaz’s 

objections further reflect that his claims based on sovereign citizen ideology and are devoid of 

merit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations entered on December 16, 2024, Doc. 11, are 

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This case is DISMISSED, with prejudice and without leave to amend, for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction;

3. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and motion to appoint counsel are denied as 

moot (Docs. 7, 12, 13);

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and to close this 

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01427-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 2