Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 ANTHONY ROGERS, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02587-TLN-CSK

13 Plaintiffs,

14 v. ORDER

15 MOUNTAIN VALLEY UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

18

19 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 41, 42) and

20 Motion to Strike (ECF No. 43). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21 pursuant to Local Rule 302. On April 3, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and

22 recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any

23 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No.

24 68.) On April 16, 2026, Plaintiffs filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF

25 No. 69).

26 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court conducted a

27 de novo review. The Court has carefully reviewed the file, including Plaintiffs’ objections, and

28 finds the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis,

1 | except as to the recommendation to deny leave to amend the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims brought

2 | against defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller in their individual capacities. While the

3 | Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the Second Amended Complaint fails to set forth

4 | sufficient allegations to state claims for retaliation, unreasonable search, and equal protection

5 | violations against these defendants, Plaintiffs identify additional facts in their objections that may

6 || cure these deficiencies. (ECF No. 69 at 5-9.) In the interest of justice and out of an abundance of

7 | caution, leave to amend these claims is appropriate. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901

8 | F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Leave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that

9 | the plaintiff can correct the defect.) (cleaned up) (quoting Breier v. Northern California Bowling

10 | Proprietors’ Ass’n, 316 F.2d 787, 789-90 (9th Cir. 1963)). With respect to Plaintiffs’ remaining

11 | claims, however, the Court is not convinced that the additional facts Plaintiffs identify in their

12 || objections will cure the deficiencies. The Court thus agrees with the magistrate judge that further

13 | amendment of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims would be futile.

14 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons:

15 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 68) are ADOPTED IN PART;

16 2. Defendants Mountain Valley Unified School District and Mountain Valley Unified

17 | School District Board of Education’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED without

18 | leave to amend;

19 3. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 42) is

20 | GRANTED with leave to amend only the First, Second, and Third Causes of Action against

21 | Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller in their individual capacities; and

22 4. Defendants Belongia, Swanstrom, and Miller’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 43) is

23 | DENIED as moot.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 || Date: May 18, 2026

26 7,

27

28 TROY L. NUNLEY

GHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE