(PC) Suong v. California Judicial Officers

Sep 1, 2026
2:25-cv-03217

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF‘S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 10, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff‘s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and that his application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 5) in this case be denied. (Doc. No. 6.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff, who is serving an indeterminate 75 years to life sentence of imprisonment, was attempting to bring claims for purported violation of federal and state criminal laws against California Judicial Officers named only as Jane and John Doe, as well as warrants for the defendants’ arrest and that plaintiff lacked standing to bring such claims. (Id. at 1–4.) The magistrate judge also concluded that it was apparent that granting leave to amend would be futile in light of the nature of the complaint‘s deficiencies. (Id. at 4.)

The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5.) On December 29, 2025, the court received plaintiff‘s objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff‘s objections do not meaningfully address the magistrate judge‘s well-reasoned and thorough findings and recommendations nor do they provide a basis upon which those findings and recommendations should be rejected.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

  1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 10, 2025 (Doc. No. 6) are adopted in full;
  2. Plaintiff‘s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 5) is denied;
  3. Plaintiff‘s complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend due to plaintiff‘s lack of standing to bring this action and his failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
  4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2026

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE