# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · August 4, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11434393

## Case

- **Full name:** Michela Brown v. County of El Dorado, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 4, 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/11434393

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MICHELA BROWN, Case No. 2:26-cv-00186-DC-CSK (PS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER
13 v. (ECF No. 3)
14 COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 17, 2026, the Magistrate Judge
19 filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), which were served on the parties
20 and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations
21 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On May 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed objections to
22 the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 5). The Court grants Plaintiff’s request
23 (ECF No. 4) to accept Plaintiff’s late-filed objections and has considered all objections
24 raised.
25 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo
26 review. The Court has carefully reviewed the file, including Plaintiff’s objections.
27 While the Court agrees that dismissal is appropriate, it does so for reasons partially
28 distinct from those stated by the Magistrate Judge and with leave to amend. As the
1 Court does not find the action to be frivolous, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma
2 Pauperis is granted.
3 The Findings and Recommendations recommend dismissal partly on the basis
4 that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. (ECF No. 3 at 6.)
5 Younger generally precludes federal courts from entertaining actions that would
6 interfere with ongoing state court proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–45
7 (1971); Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). Liberally construed,
8 Plaintiff’s claims here do not necessarily seem to directly implicate ongoing state court
9 proceedings. Plaintiff at least partially claims that Defendants interfered with her
10 employment by disclosing “Plaintiff’s protected victim status to her employer,
11 resulting in review and loss of employment.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) While this bears some
12 factual connection to state criminal proceedings in which Plaintiff was an alleged
13 victim, there is no implication that claims on this basis would interfere with ongoing
14 state court proceedings.
15 The Findings and Recommendations also recommend dismissal on the basis
16 that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. On this, the undersigned agrees. Plaintiff’s
17 claims are conclusory and lack sufficient factual allegations to support a claim against
18 any Defendant. Plaintiff mentions retaliation under the First Amendment at several
19 points but the limited facts alleged fail to establish that “(1) [Plaintiff] engaged in
20 constitutionally protected activity; (2) as a result, [s]he was subjected to adverse action
21 by the defendant that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to
22 engage in the protected activity; and (3) there was a substantial causal relationship
23 between the constitutionally protected activity and the adverse action.” Ballentine v.
24 Tucker, 28 F.4th 54, 61 (9th Cir. 2022).
25 Plaintiff has also failed to allege facts that would support claims against
26 individual defendants. In order to state a section 1983 claim, Plaintiff’s allegations
27 must satisfy the “linkage requirement” which requires that the facts establish a
28 connection between each individual Defendant’s acts or omissions and the alleged
1 | deprivation of Plaintiff's federal or constitutional rights. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588
2 | F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). The present complaint fails to identify any specific acts
3 | or omissions by individual defendants, let alone how those acts or omissions violated
4 | Plaintiff's rights.
5 Given the above, the Court agrees that dismissal of the Complaint is
6 || appropriate for failure to state a claim. However, as it is not readily apparent at this
7 || stage that Plaintiff's claims are barred, leave to amend is appropriate as it does not yet
8 || seem amendment is futile.
9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
10 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN PART.
11 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
12 3. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
13 4. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order
14 to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the
15 Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of
16 Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to
17 this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an
18 amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in a
19 recommendation that this action be dismissed.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 | Dated: _ August 3, 2026 Donel J □□ bratte—
Hon. Daniel alabretta
23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11434393. Public record. Not legal advice.