Anthony et al v. County of San Diego et al

1
25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIAN ANTHONY, JASMINE
JOHANESEN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
ORDER:
(1) DENYING REQUEST FOR
STATUS CONFERENCE [ECF No.
29];
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY
OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT [ECF No. 29];
(3) DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE and MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS [ECF No. 30];
(4) DENYING MOTION FOR
RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION
[ECF No. 31];
(5) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDAMUS [ECF No. 32]; and
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 44 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(6) DENYING MOTION TO REFER
MATTER TO DISTRICT
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [ECF
No. 33]
Before the Court are several motions filed by Pro Se Plaintiffs Marian Anthony and
Jasmine Johanesen. The present Order addresses four of the pending motions, (ECF Nos.
29, 31–33), with the other motions to be addressed in separate orders.1
Before addressing the merits of each motion, the Court first acknowledges that
Plaintiffs’ motions are missing a hearing date and time. The Southern District of
California’s Civil Local Rule 5.1(i)(4) requires the date and time of a hearing on the cover
page of each motion. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 5.1(i)(4). A motion requires a hearing date because
the hearing date sets the briefing schedule for a response to and reply in support of any
given motion. The undersigned judge requires parties to obtain a hearing date by calling
the Law Clerk—otherwise a “hearing date will not be reserved.” Civil Pretrial & Trial
Procedures of Judge Dana M. Sabraw, rule 6(B). Plaintiffs have already been instructed to
comply on this same issue. (See ECF No. 26, at 2–3). Continued failure to comply may
result in a denial of Plaintiffs’ motions without reaching the merits.
I. REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE [ECF No. 29]
Plaintiffs request a status conference or case management conference due to
“inaction,” but state no legal basis for this request. (ECF No. 29, at 1). Further, the Court
finds that a status conference is unnecessary at this juncture. Plaintiffs’ request is therefore
DENIED.
/ / /
/ / /
1 Often times, Plaintiffs include several requests within one motion. For example, Plaintiffs’ motion for
status conference or case management conference includes a motion for entry of default and default
judgement. The Court ORDERS the parties to limit each filing to one motion.
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 44 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND
DEFAULT JUDGMENT [ECF No. 29]
Plaintiffs also move for entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a)
and default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). (Id. at 2). Plaintiffs
argue that entry of default and default judgment are warranted because “Defendants have
failed to file a formal answer to the complaint after their motion to dismiss.” (Id.).
Defendant the County of San Diego (“County”) timely filed a motion to dismiss. (See ECF
No. 10). Thus, the County was not required to file an answer. Farmer v. Las Vegas Metro.
Police Dep’t, 423 F. Supp. 3d 1008, 1016 (D. Nev. 2019). In addition, according to the
County, the individual defendants have not been served, (ECF No. 10-1, at 10 n.2), which
means the individual defendants are not yet required to answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A).
Further, this Court dismissed the original Complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend;
thus, there is no operative Complaint for the Defendants to answer. (See ECF No. 34). As
such, Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default and for default judgment is DENIED.
III. MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE and
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [ECF No. 30]
Plaintiffs move to compel Defendants’ response, “as Defendants have failed to
answer the complaint.” (ECF No. 30, at 1–2). Plaintiffs also request sanctions for this
delay. (Id. at 2). For the reasons stated above, see supra Section II, the Court DENIES
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and motion for sanctions.
IV. MOTION FOR RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION [ECF No. 31]
This case came before the Court after being transferred to the undersigned judge on
July 2, 2025. (ECF No. 27). On September 17, 2025, Plaintiffs moved for the recusal of
the previously assigned judge, Chief Judge Bashant. (ECF No. 31). Because this case is
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 44 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
now before the undersigned judge, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal or
disqualification as moot.2
V. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [ECF No. 32]
Plaintiffs also filed a petition for writ of mandamus, to “compel the granting on
pending motions.”3 Plaintiffs argue that the “District Court’s inaction since July 9, 2025,
on Plaintiffs’ amended motion constitutes [abandonment].” (ECF No. 32, at 2). This
action came before the Court after being transferred to the undersigned judge on July 2,
2025. (ECF No. 27). Since, this Court ruled on Plaintiffs’ July 9, 2025 motion, (ECF No.
28). (See ECF No. 43). The Court also ruled on the County’s motion to dismiss. (See
ECF No. 34). Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Petition as being moot.
VI. MOTION TO REFER MATTER [ECF No. 33]
Plaintiffs move the Court to “refer the matter to the San Diego County District
Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution and to the United States Department for Justice
for investigation and potential enforcement action.” (ECF No. 33, at 2). Plaintiffs argue
that the Court has “inherent authority” to take such an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and
34 U.S.C. § 12601. However, “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute
discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,
693 (1974). The Court cannot direct either the San Diego County District Attorney’s
Office or the United States Department for Justice to open an investigation or prosecute
cases. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED.
VII. CONCLUSION
The Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs’ request for a status conference is DENIED (ECF No. 29);
2 In the same filing, Plaintiffs also move to preserve evidence. This motion will be addressed in a separate
order.
3 In the same filing, Plaintiffs also request a writ of mandamus to compel “the State of California to release
the sealed search warrant issued by Judge Kathleen M. Lewis on August 9, 2022.” (ECF No. 32, at 2).
This request will be addressed in a separate order.
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 44 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2) Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default and default judgment is DENIED (ECF
No. 29);
(3) Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendants’ response to the Complaint and
motion for sanctions are DENIED (ECF No. 30);
(4) Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal or disqualification of Chief Judge Bashant is
DENIED as moot (ECF No. 31);
(5) Plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED (ECF No. 32); and
(6) Plaintiffs’ motion to refer this matter to the San Diego County District
Attorney’s Office and the United States Department of Justice is DENIED
(ECF No. 33).
The Court further ORDERS the parties to limit each filing to one motion.
Dated: December 3, 2025
_________________________________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 44 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5