Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00826-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Fresno
Defendant
Barry Stuart Halajian
Plaintiff
Kelly Yost
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Barry Halajian is proceeding pro se in this action, in which he seeks to hold Kelly Yost and the 

City of Fresno liable for violations of federal and state laws, including violations of his civil rights, the 

Bill of Attainder, the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, negligent interference with a 

prospective economic advantage, and infliction of emotional distress. (See generally Doc. 1.) 

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 8, 12(b)(1)(6), 12(e), 12(f) and 12(g) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 5.)

The assigned magistrate judge noted Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was 

untimely, and recommended the Court grant his request to consider the belated filing. (Doc. 20 at 2.) 

Reviewing the allegations of the complaint, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to sufficiently 

allege facts that would support Monell liability against the City. (Id. at 9-10.) In addition, the 

magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state constitutional violations under the Equal Protections 

Clause, the Due Process Clause, and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. (Id. at 10-12.) The 

BARRY STUART HALAJIAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY YOST, et al,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0826 JLT SKO

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 

DEEFNDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docs. 5, 14, 20)

Case 1:24-cv-00826-JLT-SKO Document 28 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 3
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

magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to state a claim regarding a bill of attainder, because 

Plaintiff did not identify any “bill” in issue. (Id. at 13.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff did 

not allege a violation of the Contracts Clause because “Plaintiff has not alleged the state legislature has 

impaired his contract with another party (nor has Plaintiff alleged he has a contract with

Defendant.” (Id. at 14.) Finally, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a claim under state 

law because he did not “identif[y] a statutory basis for liability.” (Id. at 15.) Therefore, the magistrate 

judge recommended the motion to dismiss be granted, and Plaintiff be given leave to file an amended 

complaint. (Id. at 15-16.) 

Plaintiff filed an “Opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

(Doc. 22.) He contends the magistrate judge erred in finding that he fails to state a claim, and 

“object[s] to being shut out of the discovery process.” (Id. at 6-7; see also id. at 28.) Plaintiff also 

alleges additional facts and submits exhibits to support of his claims. (See id. at 30-36.) 

The Court does not find the objections meaningfully respond to the specific findings of the 

magistrate judge related to the pleading deficiencies of the claims raised. To the extent Plaintiff now 

submits additional allegations and evidence to support his claim, such are not relevant to the 

determination of whether he stated a cognizable claim in the initial complaint. Further, to the extent 

that Plaintiff contends he is being “shut out” of the discovery process, he is simply required to state a 

cognizable claim before the Court will open discovery. See Simon v. Value Behavioral Health, Inc. 

208 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000 (observing that a plaintiff has “the burden of pleading a cognizable 

claim,” and declining to disturb the ruling of the district court to not permit immediate discovery); see 

also Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 379 (6th Cir. 2007) (“It is well established that there is no 

general right to discovery upon filing of the complaint.... In the absence of a cognizable claim, 

[plaintiffs] have no right to any discovery”) (citation omitted)).

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having 

carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the Findings and 

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 15, 2024 (Doc. 20) are 

ADOPTED in full.

Case 1:24-cv-00826-JLT-SKO Document 28 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 3
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. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an opposition (Doc. 14) is GRANTED

nunc pro tunc. 

3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED.

4. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with leave to amend.

5. Within 21 days, Plaintiff SHALL file a First Amended Complaint. The amended 

complaint SHALL bear the case number and be signed under penalty of perjury. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall not exceed 30 pages, including exhibits.

Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal without prejudice failure to 

prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00826-JLT-SKO Document 28 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 3