# Committee to Recall Dan Holladay v. Wiley

> District Court, D. Oregon · January 10, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10395507

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** January 10, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10395507

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

COMMITTEE TO RECALL DAN
HOLLADAY et al., No. 3:20-cv-01631-YY
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
JAKOB WILEY,
Defendant,
and
STATE OF OREGON,
Intervenor.
MOSMAN, J.,
On August 25, 2022, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and

Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 52] recommending that I grant the State of Oregon’s and
Defendant’s respective Motions to Dismiss [ECF 21, 23] and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Certification of a Question to the Oregon Supreme Court [ECF 43]. Plaintiffs filed objections to
the F&R [ECF 56], to which the State of Oregon and Defendant replied [ECF 57, 58]. Upon
review, I agree with Judge You and write further to explain denying leave to amend the complaint.
I GRANT the Motions to Dismiss and DENY the Motion for Certification of a Question to the
Oregon Supreme Court.
LEGAL STANDARD
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th
Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on
whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any
part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
DISCUSSION
I adopt Judge You’s F&R in full and write further to expand on the decision to dismiss the

complaint rather than grant leave to amend. “A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave
to amend when amendment would be futile . . . .” Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719,
725–26 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, amendment would be futile for several reasons. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s
statement on the ease of obtaining signatures in a setting not affected by COVID-19 clearly
contradicts Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim. Further, Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to include
data on the fact that most recall petitions fail would not establish the link between failed petitions
and the alleged severe burden of the 90-day time restriction. More importantly, because sovereign
immunity and mootness apply, any amendment to the complaint to cure its deficiencies would be
futile. Therefore, dismissal is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge You’s recommendation, and 1 ADOPT the F&R [ECF 52]
as my Own opinion. The Motions to Dismiss [ECF 21, 23] are GRANTED, and the Motion for
Certification of a Question to the Oregon Supreme Court [ECF 43] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this i day of January, 2023.

LX W. Wot
Senior United StateSDistrict Judge

3 — OPINION AND ORDER

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10395507. Public record. Not legal advice.