Moore

Murphy v. Moore

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20241:24-cv-00226California10,577 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEAN MURPHY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00226-JLT-SKO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE BE v.

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART DEWAYNE MOORE, individually, and as Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Fresno; CITY OF FRESNO, a City or THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE Municipality; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, AN UNTIMELY FILING BE GRANTED

Defendants. (Doc. 11, 17, 18)

OBJECTIONS DUE: 21 DAYS 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Dean Murphy, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Dewayne Moore and the City of Fresno (the “City”) (collectively, “Defendants”) by filing a complaint on February 21, 2024. (Doc. 1). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) on May 13, 2025. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint…

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.