# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · April 3, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379465

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony Rogers, et al. v. Mountain Valley Unified School District, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 3, 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/11379465

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANTHONY ROGERS, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02587-TLN-CSK
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
13 v.
(ECF Nos. 41, 42, 43, 57, 60, 61)
14 MOUNTAIN VALLEY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiffs Anthony Rogers, Roberto Romero, and Devin Nanez are proceeding pro
18 se in this action.1 Pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendants
19 Mountain Valley Unified School District (“MVUSD”) and MVUSD Board of Education’s
20 (collectively “MVUSD Defendants”) motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
21 (“SAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim;
22 or in the alternative, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) (ECF
23 No. 41); (2) Defendants Claude Belongia, Anmarie Swanstrom, and Michael Edward
24 Miller’s motion to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim,
25 or in the alternative, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) (ECF
26 No. 42); (3) Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller’s motion to strike the SAC
27
1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).
1 pursuant to Rule 12(f) (ECF No. 43); (4) Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third
2 Amended Complaint (“TAC”) (ECF No. 57); and (5) Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file
3 supplemental authority in support of their motion to file a TAC (ECF Nos. 60, 61).
4 Briefing is closed for all motions. On November 26, 2025, the Court submitted the
5 motions to dismiss and motion to strike upon the record and briefs on file and vacated
6 the December 2, 2025 hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 11/26/2025 Order (ECF
7 No. 53). The Court also submits Plaintiffs’ motions (ECF Nos. 57, 60, 61) upon the
8 record and the briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons that follow, the
9 Court RECOMMENDS GRANTING MVUSD Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 41)
10 without leave to amend; GRANTING Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller’s
11 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 42) without leave to amend; and DENYING Defendants
12 Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller’s motion to strike (ECF No. 43) as moot. Furthermore,
13 the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a TAC (ECF No. 57) is DENIED
14 and that Plaintiffs’ motions to file supplemental authority (ECF Nos. 60, 61) are DENIED.
15 I. BACKGROUND
16 A. Factual Allegations2
17 The Court incorporates the case background previously provided in its November
18 6, 2025 Order and Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”). See 11/6/2025 Order and
19 F&Rs (ECF No. 46.) The SAC alleges that beginning in the summer of 2023, Defendant
20 MVUSD piloted the FlySense vape-detector alerts district-wide. SAC at 2. In August
21 2024, Plaintiffs submitted a complaint raising concerns about FlySense’s accuracy,
22 student privacy, and lack of parental notification. Id. Defendant Board of Education did
23 not respond or amend its policies despite Plaintiff’s complaint. Id. On or about March 25,
24 2024, S.N. and T.R.,3 eighth grade students, were interrogated without parental

25 2 These facts primarily derive from the SAC (ECF No. 23), which are construed in the
26 light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs.,
706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). However, the Court does not assume the truth of
27 any conclusory factual allegations or legal conclusions. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d
1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009).
28 3 Minors S.N. and T.R., and claims brought on their behalf, were previously dismissed
1 notification by Defendant Principal Belongia after a “VAPE DETECTED” alert. SAC ¶ 12.
2 Defendant Belongia “dismissed” their request for a “perfume test” and “ordered
3 immediate suspension.” Id. ¶ 13. The next day, Defendant Belongia threatened punitive
4 discipline by stripping S.N. of “all sports and her Student Body President position.” Id.
5 ¶ 14. The SAC alleges Defendant Superintendent Swanstrom justified the summary
6 suspension based on the FlySense alert. Id. ¶ 15.
7 The SAC further alleges on February 12, 2025, Defendants Miller and Swanstrom
8 detained Plaintiff Nanez and six other boys after a FlySense alert, “forcing them to
9 ‘empty your pockets or else’ without finding contraband.” SAC ¶ 18. The SAC alleges
10 Defendants Miller and Swanstrom deprived Plaintiff Nanez of “privacy without
11 contraband or due process.” Id. ¶ 23. The SAC alleges Defendants Belongia and
12 Swanstrom interrogated, intimidated, and suspended Plaintiff Nanez without offering any
13 intervention, education, or process safeguards.” Id. ¶ 22. The SAC alleges the MVUSD
14 “Board of Trustees failed to collect or remedy discipline disparities affecting Native and
15 Latina students,” including S.N., T.R., and Plaintiff Nanez, despite “disaggregation
16 requirement.” Id. ¶ 24.
17 B. Procedural Posture
18 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on September 25, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) On June 12,
19 2025, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). FAC (ECF No. 7); see Fed. R.
20 Civ. P. 15(a)(1). On July 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a SAC. (ECF
21 No. 14.) Plaintiffs also filed multiple versions of the SAC, including unsigned versions.
22 (ECF Nos. 12, 15, 16, 17.) The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to file a SAC, ordered
23 Plaintiffs to file a signed copy of the SAC filed at ECF No. 17, and struck the unsigned
24 filings. 7/11/2025 Order (ECF No. 24). The operative complaint is the signed SAC filed at
25 ECF No. 29 at 1-12.4 On November 6, 2025, the Court issued an Order and F&Rs

26
without prejudice by the Court on November 6, 2025. See 11/6/2025 Order & F&Rs.
27 4 As previously noted, the Court did not grant Plaintiffs leave to further amend the SAC
or to file attachments to the SAC. See 7/11/2025 Order; 11/6/2025 Order & F&Rs at 5.
28 Because Plaintiffs attached various documents to the SAC without leave of court, the
1 dismissing minor Plaintiffs S.N. and T.R. and claims brought on their behalf without
2 prejudice, and recommended that Soter Technologies’ motion to dismiss be granted and
3 Soter Technologies be dismissed with prejudice. See 11/6/2025 Order and F&Rs. On
4 March 31, 2026, the district court adopted in full the November 6, 2025 F&Rs and
5 dismissed Soter Technologies with prejudice from this action. 3/31/2026 Order (ECF No.
6 67).
7 II. LEGAL STANDARDS
8 A. Pro Se Pleadings, Construction and Amendment
9 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed and afforded the benefit of any
10 doubt. Chambers v. Herrera, 78 F.4th 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2023). Upon dismissal of any
11 claims, the court must tell a pro se plaintiff of a pleading’s deficiencies and provide an
12 opportunity to cure such defects. Garity v. APWU Nat'l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th
13 Cir. 2016). However, if amendment would be futile, leave to amend does not need to be
14 provided. Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023).
15 To determine the propriety of a dismissal motion, the court may not consider facts
16 raised outside the complaint (such as in an opposition brief), but it may consider such
17 facts when deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023,
18 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).
19 B. Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
20 A claim may be dismissed because of the plaintiff’s “failure to state a claim upon
21 which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint fails to state a claim if
22 it either lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal
23 theory. Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). When considering
24 whether a claim has been stated, the court must accept the well-pleaded factual
25 allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-
26 moving party. Id. However, the court is not required to accept as true conclusory factual
27
Court will not consider Plaintiffs’ attachments filed at ECF No. 29 at 13-50 as previously
28 ordered. See 11/6/2025 Order & F&Rs at 5.
1 allegations contradicted by documents referenced in the complaint, or legal conclusions
2 merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559
3 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009).
4 C. Motion to Strike under Rule 12(f)
5 Rule 12(f) grants the district court authority to “strike from a pleading an
6 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
7 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f). The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion “is to avoid the expenditure
8 of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with
9 those issues prior to trial.” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th
10 Cir. 1983).
11 III. DISCUSSION
12 The SAC alleges six causes of action: (1) “retaliation for protected speech” in
13 violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (SAC
14 ¶¶ 25-27); (2) “unlawful searches & denial of due process” in violation of the Fourth and
15 Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (SAC ¶¶ 28-30); (3) “equal
16 protection violation” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (SAC ¶¶ 31-33); (4) “municipal liability
17 (Monell)”5 claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (SAC ¶¶ 34-36); (5) “private-entity joint
18 action” claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (SAC ¶¶ 37-39); and (6) “negligent hiring,
19 retention & statutory mis-assignment” pursuant to 5 California Code of Regulations
20 § 80054.5 and California Education Code §§ 44830-31 (SAC ¶¶ 40-50). The SAC names
21 the following defendants: MVUSD Board of Education, MVUSD, MVUSD Superintendent
22 Swanstrom, Principal Belongia, and Dean of Students Michael Edward Miller. Plaintiffs
23 seek compensatory damages for Plaintiffs Rogers and Romero; punitive damages;
24 declaratory and injunctive relief; and other forms of relief. SAC at 9-10.
25 Defendants move to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim, or in the
26 alternative, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and
27

28 5 Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
1 Miller also move to strike the SAC’s request for punitive damages. The Court addresses
2 each motion in turn.
3 A. MVUSD Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
4 MVUSD Defendants move to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack
5 of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. MVUSD Defs.
6 Mot. (ECF No. 41-1). Because the Court finds claims against MVUSD Defendants
7 should be dismissed for failure to state a claim based on Eleventh Amendment immunity,
8 the Court declines to address the alternative ground for dismissal.
9 MVUSD Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing all claims
10 against them are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. MVUSD Defs. Mot. at 5.
11 Plaintiffs concede California school districts enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity and
12 argue they do not seek monetary damages from MVUSD Defendants. Pls. Opp’n. at 4
13 (ECF No. 45). Instead, Plaintiffs argue they seek prospective and injunctive relief against
14 “the Board” to stop ongoing constitutional violations caused by FlySense alerts. Id. The
15 Court finds claims against MVUSD Defendants are barred pursuant to the Eleventh
16 Amendment.
17 Claims for damages against the state, its agencies, or its officers for actions
18 performed in their official capacities are barred under the Eleventh Amendment, unless
19 the state waives its immunity. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). Section
20 1983 does not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. See Quern
21 v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 344-45 (1979); see also Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991)
22 (clarifying that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officials sued in
23 their individual capacities, nor does it bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against
24 state officials sued in their official capacities). Pendent state law claims against
25 nonconsenting state defendants in federal court are also barred by the Eleventh
26 Amendment in federal court. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th
27 Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit has held that “California school district and [county offices of
28 education] remain arms of state and continue to enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity.”
1 Sato v. Orange Cnty. Dep't of Educ., 861 F.3d 923, 934 (9th Cir. 2017); see also
2 Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 248, 251 (9th Cir. 1992) ([U]nder
3 California law, the school district is a state agency that performs central governmental
4 functions [and is] protected by the Eleventh Amendment.”). To the extent that a “school
5 board’s authority is coextensive with the authority of a school district under state law, a
6 school board in California is likewise a state agency for purposes of the Eleventh
7 Amendment.” Brouillette v. Montague Elementary Sch. Dist., 2014 WL 2453036, at *2
8 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2014).
9 The Court finds that MVUSD Defendants are arms of the state for purposes of
10 Eleventh Amendment immunity. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs contend they seek only
11 prospective and injunctive relief against MVUSD Defendants, the SAC primarily seeks
12 monetary damages and does not demonstrate that Plaintiffs are likely to suffer similar
13 injuries in the future. See SAC at 9-10; Caldwell v. LeFaver, 928 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir.
14 1991) (“An individual's past exposure to alleged unlawful conduct is insufficient to
15 establish standing to seek injunctive relief; instead, an individual must demonstrate the
16 likelihood of similar injury in the future.). For these reasons, the Court finds that MVUSD
17 Defendants are immune from Plaintiffs’ claims under the Eleventh Amendment.
18 Accordingly, the Court recommends granting MVUSD Defendants’ motion to dismiss
19 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.
20 B. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller’s Motion to Dismiss
21 Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller move to dismiss the SAC pursuant
22 to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
23 state a claim. Individual Defs. Mot. (ECF No. 42-1). Because the Court finds claims
24 against MVUSD Defendants should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court
25 declines to address the alternative ground for dismissal.
26 Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller’s move to dismiss under Rule
27 12(b)(6) arguing all claims against them in their official capacity are barred by Eleventh
28 Amendment immunity. Individual Defs. Mot. at 4-5. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom,
1 and Miller also move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) claims against them in their
2 individual capacity for failure to state a claim. Id. at 6-10. The Court finds claims brought
3 against Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller in their official capacity are barred
4 pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment and claims brought against Defendants Belongia,
5 Swanstrom, and Miller in their individual capacity fail to state a claim.
6 1. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller Sued in Their Official
7 Capacities
8 Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller in their
9 official capacities. See SAC at 1; ¶¶ 5-7. The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for
10 damages against the state, its agencies, or its officers for actions performed in their
11 official capacities. Kentucky, 473 U.S. at 169. California school districts are considered
12 arms of the State. See Belanger, 963 F.2d at 253-54. Because the SAC brings claims
13 against Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller related to their actions as
14 employees of MVUSD and in their scope of their employment in their official capacities,
15 the Court finds claims brought against Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller in
16 their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, the Court
17 finds Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller are immune from suit in their official
18 capacities.
19 2. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller Sued in Their
20 Individual Capacities
21 Plaintiff brings claims for violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Claims 1, 2, 3) and
22 “negligent hiring, retention & statutory mis-assignment” (Claim 6) against Defendants
23 Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller in their individual capacities. See SAC ¶¶ 15-50. These
24 claims are the only claims in the SAC with any charging allegations as to Defendants
25 Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller. Id. The SAC alleges Defendants Belongia and
26 Swanstrom “threatened and imposed punitive discipline in retaliation intended to chill
27 further complaints” in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to
28 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Claim 1); Defendants generally “conducted warrantless, suspicion-
1 less searches of minors without notice or hearing” in violation of the Fourth and
2 Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Claim 2); Defendants generally
3 “selectively enforced FlySense alerts against Native and Latina students while ignoring
4 similarly situated peers, lacking any rational basis and motived by individual animus” in
5 violation of the Equal Protection clause pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Claim 3); and
6 Defendant Swanstrom was negligent in hiring Defendant Miller to the Dean of Students
7 pursuant to 5 California Code of Regulations § 80054.5 and California Education Code
8 §§ 44830-31. SAC ¶¶ 25-33, 40-50.
9 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a
10 federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a
11 person acting under the color of state law. See Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, 194
12 (2024); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934
13 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the
14 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a
15 causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged
16 constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989);
17 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). There can be no liability under
18 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a
19 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371
20 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). That is, “an official may be
21 liable as a supervisor only if either (1) he or she was personally involved in the
22 constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection exists between the
23 supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Felarca v. Birgeneau, 891
24 F.3d 809, 819-20 (9th Cir. 2018); Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776,
25 798 (9th Cir. 2018).
26 Here, Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations against Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom,
27 and Miller do not demonstrate a connection to, or involvement in any alleged
28 constitutional violations. Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement
1 of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of
2 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
3 664 (2009) (“While legal conclusions can provide the complaint's framework, they must
4 be supported by factual allegations.”). Because Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a
5 connection to, or involvement by Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller to the
6 alleged constitutional violations, the Court recommends claims brought against these
7 defendants in their individual capacity be dismissed without leave to amend because
8 amendment would be futile.
9 Plaintiffs also bring a claim for “negligent hiring, retention & statutory mis-
10 assignment” against Defendant Swanstrom. Under California law, “an employer can be
11 liable to a third person for negligent hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee”
12 based on “the facts that the employer knew or should have known that hiring the
13 employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.” Doe
14 v. Cap. Cities, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1038, 1054 (1996). Here, Plaintiffs have not adequately
15 alleged a negligent hiring/retention claim. The SAC generally alleges that Defendant
16 Miller did not hold certain credentials as allegedly required to be a Dean for Students
17 and Defendant Swanstrom’s failure to verify Defendant Miller’s credentials violated state
18 law. SAC ¶¶ 40-50. Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations fail to show that Defendant
19 Swanstrom is liable for negligently hiring or retaining Defendant Miller.
20 Based on the above, the Court recommends granting Defendants Belongia,
21 Swanstrom, and Miller’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) without leave to
22 amend because amendment would be futile.
23 C. Leave to Amend
24 If the court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, it
25 has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
26 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that
27 the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at
28 1130-31; see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se
1 litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its
2 deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not
3 be cured by amendment.”) (citation omitted). However, if, after careful consideration, it is
4 clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without
5 leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105-06.
6 Here, the Court finds that amendment would be futile because Plaintiffs do not
7 state any claim upon which relief can be granted as outlined above. The Court
8 concludes that amendment would be futile, and therefore, leave to amend should not be
9 provided. See Lathus, 56 F.4th at 1243.
10 D. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller’s Motion to Strike
11 Because this Court recommends that this action be dismissed in its entirety, the
12 Court recommends Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller’s motion to strike (ECF
13 No. 43) be DENIED as moot.
14 E. Plaintiff’s Miscellaneous Motions
15 Because the Court recommends the SAC be dismissed without leave to amend,
16 Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a TAC (ECF No. 57) and motions to file supplemental
17 authority (ECF Nos. 60, 61) are DENIED as moot. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815,
18 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for
19 leave to amend.”). The Court also notes that Plaintiffs have already filed several
20 separate complaints, including some that were previously stricken, and the Third
21 Amended Complaint would be their eighth complaint.
22 IV. CONCLUSION
23 In conclusion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
24 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 57)
25 is DENIED; and
26 2. Plaintiffs’ motions to file supplemental authority (ECF Nos. 60, 61) are
27 DENIED.
28 Further, based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED:
1 1. MVUSD Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 41) be GRANTED
2 without leave to amend;
3 2. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller's motion to dismiss (ECF No.
4 42) be GRANTED without leave to amend;
5 3. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller's motion to strike (ECF No.
6 43) be DENIED as moot; and
7 4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.
8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
9 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
10 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
11 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should
12 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any
13 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14
14 || days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time
15 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,
16 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
18 | Dated: April 3, 2026 C i s
19 CHI SOO KIM
50 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21 || 4, roge2587.24
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379465. Public record. Not legal advice.