“L.A. Resident Files Motion to Vacate Federal Court Dismissal — Claims Retaliation, Ongoing Harassment by City Agencies”

The Sovereign Record
Aug 8
3 min read

Public Notice: Federal Civil Rights Case Against Los Angeles City Departments Moves to Motion to Vacate Dismissal Case

№2:24-cv-09072-TJH-DTB

By- The sovereign record

Date: August 8, 2025

Summary

I, Daevon J. Taylor, have moved in federal court to vacate the dismissal of my civil rights lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). This case is not only about a single vehicle impoundment — it is about an ongoing, coordinated campaign of retaliation, harassment, and due process violations committed by multiple City agencies.

Background

• June 5, 2024: LAPD conducted an unlawful raid on my property, during which my rights were violated and property tampered with. This marked the start of a pattern of harassment.

• October 16, 2024: LADOT and LAPD impounded my personal property — my vehicle — without any posted ordinance, without a citation, and without due process. Officer Dixon reached toward his firearm, and Officer Abanobi attempted to provoke me physically.

• December 5, 2024: I filed a Government Claim with the City of Los Angeles (Claim No. C25–03582) to report these violations. The City failed to respond within the 45-day statutory period, making the claim automatically deemed rejected by law.

• April 9, 2025: I filed a detailed Sur-Reply with evidence, case law, and video references proving the impoundment was unlawful under California law and the U.S. Constitution. The federal court never addressed these filings.

• August 4, 2025: Without holding a hearing or addressing my evidence, the Court dismissed my case but granted 30 days to amend.

The Motion to Vacate

My new motion to vacate the dismissal is based on:

1. Failure to Consider Evidence: The Court ignored my Sur-Reply, video references, and supporting declarations. At the dismissal stage, all factual allegations must be taken as true (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662).

2. Retaliation for Protected Speech: The October 16, 2024 incident was direct retaliation for exposing corruption after the June 5, 2024 raid (Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250).

3. Continuing Violations: Harassment has continued through chemical surges, EMF events, and interference with my property and personal safety (Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101).

4. Government Claims Act Compliance: I followed all legal prerequisites by filing my claim in December 2024. The City’s failure to respond confirms my right to sue (State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th 1234).

5. Judicial Accountability: I have requested the oath of office of the presiding magistrate judge to confirm lawful authority to continue overseeing this matter.

VIDEO OF OCT 16, 2024 HARASSMENT INCIDENT INVOLVING LAPD & LADOT

video of ladot & lapd unlawfully towing plaintiff vehicle with no warrant or order, in retaliation for filing a lawsuit against lapd for a fraudulent warrant they served June 5, 2024

Ongoing Harm

Since these events, my home has been subjected to repeated chemical and electromagnetic interference, causing physical symptoms, hospitalization, and emotional distress. These attacks have also affected visitors to my home, including a brain tumor survivor now experiencing chronic pain.

I have repeatedly reported these dangers to federal court, but my filings have not been fully acknowledged. This raises serious questions about whether key agencies — and possibly the court — are avoiding scrutiny of coordinated, unconstitutional conduct.

Public Call to Attention

This is not an isolated dispute over a parking rule. This is a case about:

• Retaliation against a resident for exercising free speech and seeking redress;

• Failure of due process by multiple city agencies;

• Negligence and deliberate indifference to public safety hazards;

• Suppression of evidence in a federal civil rights case.

The public has a right to know when government actors — including those sworn to protect — act outside the law and conspire to harm those who speak against them.

Demands

I demand:

1. The Court vacate its dismissal order and reopen the case with all prior filings preserved;

2. All defendants respond point-by-point to my filings;

3. Immediate intervention to halt further retaliation;

4. Public release of all relevant records and sworn oaths of officials involved.

Notice

This notice serves as a public record of my claims, supported by sworn declarations and evidence filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California. All statements herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I stand ready to testify under oath before any lawful tribunal.