# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · March 10, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369689

## Case

- **Full name:** Askia Sankofa Ashanti v. State of California, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** March 10, 2026
- **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/11369689

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ASKIA SANKOFA ASHANTI, NO. CV 25-02459-AB (AGR)
12
Plaintiff,
13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
v. THE COURT SHOULD NOT
14
RECOMMEND DISMISSAL OF
15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., CERTAIN DEFENDANTS WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND
16 Defendants.

17

18

19
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a First Amended
20
Complaint (“FAC”) against eight categories of defendants: (1) the United States of
21
22 America, the President, and the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
23 Development (“Federal Defendants”); (2) the State of California, Governor Newsom, and
24 Attorney General Rob Bonta (“State Defendants”); (3) Los Angeles County District
25
Attorney Nathan Hochman; (4) City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass; (5) Los Angeles
26
County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Hilda Solis, Supervisor Holly Mitchell,
27
Supervisor Lindsay Horvath, Supervisor Janice Hahn, and Supervisor Kathryn Barger
28
1 (“Board of Supervisors Defendants”); (6) Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna; (7)
2
Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) Jim McDonnell; and (8) Barbara
3
Romero, Director and General Manager, City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Each
4
individual defendant is named in an official and individual capacity. (Dkt. No. 19.)
5
6 For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause, in
7 writing, on or before April 10, 2026, why it should not recommend dismissal of the
8 Federal Defendants, Defendant Bonta, and Defendant Hochman without leave to
9
amend.
10
I.
11
LEGAL STANDARDS
12
13 The court has screened the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
15
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
16
(citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
17
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
18
misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’
19
20 but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
21 (citations omitted).
22 The “tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
23
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
24
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678;
25
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
26
The court reviews the complaint, materials that are the subject of judicial notice,
27
28 and materials “submitted as part of the complaint.” See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250
1 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d
2
1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990).
3
A pro se complaint is liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
4
(2007) (per curiam). Plaintiffs proceeding pro se should be given a statement of the
5
complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to cure them unless it is clear the
6
7 deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-36
8 (9th Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, “district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if
9 a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a
10
complaint lacks merit entirely.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
11
banc).
12
II.
13
14 DISCUSSION
15 A. Defendants Bonta and Hochman
16
The original complaint alleged that California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Los
17
Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman “refused or declined to file
18
felony/misdemeanor charges against the tent/encampments.” (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, Dkt. No.
19
1.)
20
21 The FAC names Bonta and Hochman in (A) Claims Five and Six for “failure to
22 execute federal/state constitutional and statutory laws to remove tent/RV-motorhome
23 encampments from the sidewalks and streets”; (FAC at 9-10); (B) Claims Seven and
24
Eight for failure to file civil/criminal charges, indict, and prosecute homeless
25
encampments (Id. at 10-11); and (C) Claims Thirteen and Fourteen for failure to
26
eliminate and dismantle encampments that violate trespassing, littering and loitering
27
laws (Id. at 13-14). The requested relief includes, among other things, a request that the
28
1 Government issue citations, arrest, indict (felony/misdemeanor), and detain any person
2
who illegally erects tents or RV motorhome encampments on a street, sidewalk, bus
3
bench, alley way, parking lot, or freeway bridges/offramps. The request for relief also
4
requests that the Government remove non-citizens from encampments for deportation or
5
other proceedings. (Id. at 16 ¶¶ (h), (i), (j), (n).)
6
7 Plaintiff does not have a stand-alone federal right to the prosecution of another
8 person or entity. A “citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
9 nonprosecution of another” and “lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting
10
authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” Linda
11
R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). This principle applies to the “exercise of
12
enforcement discretion over whether to arrest or prosecute.” Id. at 617; see Sure-Tan,
13
Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 897 (1984) (no judicially cognizable interest in procuring
14
15 enforcement of immigration laws); see also United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 673
16 (2023) (same). Although Plaintiff cites City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520
17
(2024), that decision held that the Eighth Amendment did not prohibit Oregon’s public-
18
camping laws. Nothing in Grants Pass altered the principle in Linda R.S. and its
19
progeny.
20
The result is the same under California law. “[N]either a crime victim nor any other
21
22 citizen has a legally enforceable interest, public or private, in the commencement,
23 conduct, or outcome of criminal proceedings against another.” Dix v. Superior Court, 53
24 Cal. 3d 442, 450 (1991). “Except as specifically provided by law, a private citizen has no
25
personal legal interest in the outcome of an individual criminal prosecution against
26
another person.” Id. at 451.
27
28
1 Therefore, the complaint fails to state federal or state claims for relief against
2
Defendants Bonta or Hochman. Nor does it appear that Plaintiff can cure this deficiency
3
by amendment.
4
B. Federal Defendants
5
The FAC names the United States of America, the President, and the Secretary of
6
7 the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) in Claims One through Six.
8 Plaintiff sues the Federal Defendants for failing to exercise eminent domain to house the
9 homeless in violation of due process (Claim One) and equal protection (Claim Two),
10
failing to shelter the homeless in stadium-type facilities or civil/criminal detention centers
11
in violation of due process (Claim Three) and equal protection (Claim Four), and failing
12
to remove encampments in violation of due process (Claim Five) and equal protection
13
(Claim Six).1
14
15 Plaintiff alleges that he lives in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. (FAC at 4.)
16 The FAC does not allege any factual basis to impose liability on the part of the United
17
States, the President of the United States, or the Secretary of HUD over homeless
18
encampments in the Skid Row area.
19
The FAC does not allege that the encampments about which he complains are on
20
federal property. See City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520, 533 (2024) (noting
21
22 federal government has public camping laws on federal park lands and has used
23 authority to clear certain dangerous encampments on federal land). Moreover, absent
24 express waiver, sovereign immunity shields the United States from suit. FDIC v. Meyer,
25
510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) provides a limited
26
1 Although the FAC also cites the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the
27 ADA does not apply to the federal government. 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (defining “public
entity” to mean state or local government).
28
1 waiver of sovereign immunity, but for “‘injury or loss of property, or personal injury or
2
death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the
3
Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under
4
circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the
5
claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.’”
6
7 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)); Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 2011)
8 (constitutional torts “are not actionable under the FTCA because any liability would arise
9 under federal rather than state law”).
10
Under Bivens, claims for monetary relief may be brought against individual federal
11
officials for constitutional violations under limited circumstances. Egbert v. Boule, 596
12
U.S. 482, 491-93 (2022). Even assuming the court would recognize Bivens claim in this
13
context (a doubtful proposition), Plaintiff fails state any plausible claim for relief for a
14
15 violation of due process or equal protection. To state a claim for a due process violation,
16 Plaintiff must allege “‘(1) a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution; (2) a
17
deprivation of the interest by the government; and (3) lack of process.’” Guatay Christian
18
Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 983 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
19
Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any deprivation by a federal official of a liberty or property
20
interest protected by the constitution. Indeed, the complaint fails to allege that any
21
22 homeless encampment about which Plaintiff complains is on federal property and fails to
23 allege any involvement by a federal official. Plaintiff’s equal protection claim under the
24 Fifth Amendment2 fails for the same reason: the FAC fails to allege that a federal official
25
has discriminated against him.
26

27 2 The Supreme Court’s approach to Fifth Amendment equal protection claims
against the federal government “has always been precisely the same as to equal
28 (continued…)
1 III.
2
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
3
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs show cause, in
4
writing, on or before April 10, 2026, why the Court should not recommend dismissal of
5
the claims against the Federal Defendants, Defendant Bonta and Defendant Hochman
6
7 without leave to amend.
8 If Plaintiff does not timely respond to this order to show cause, the Federal
9 Defendants and Defendants Bonta and Hochman may be dismissed without leave to
10
amend. The case will proceed against other defendants.
11

12
13
DATED: March 10, 2026 __________________________________
14 ALICIA G. ROSENBERG
United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(…continued)
27 protections claims under the Fourteenth Amendment” against the states. Weinberger v.
Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975).
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369689. Public record. Not legal advice.