Asman

(PS) Schmitz v. Asman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 20242:20-cv-00195California2,683 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 THOMAS SCHMITZ, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00195-DJC-CKD (PS) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER AND ADAM ASMAN, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants.

16 Plaintiffs Dianne Mallia and Thomas Schmitz proceed without counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individually and as successors of interest to the estate of their son, William Schmitz. This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the motion presently before the court, plaintiff Mallia seeks partial judgment on the pleadings against defendants Ceballos, Lizarraga, Kuich, Kernan, Diaz, Toche, Gipson, Tebrock, Brizendine, Brockenborough, and Ponciano. (ECF No. 363, 367.) The court took this matter under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 375.) For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff Mallia’s motion should be denied. However, within 14 days, defendants Tebrock and Ponciano shall show cause in writing why…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.