Oxley

Oxley v. Madrigal

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 20255:23-cv-02371California4,791 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL OXLEY,

Case No. 23-cv-02371 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, CORRECTED ORDER GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

v. MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING

LEAVE TO AMEND; GRANTING

MADRIGAL, et al., REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL

NOTICE; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

Defendants. TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

(Docket No. 18) 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against officials and medical staff at the West County Detention Facility in Contra Costa County, where he was previously confined. Dkt. No. 1. The amended complaint is the operative complaint in this matter. Dkt. No. 11 (“FAC”). The Court found the FAC, liberally construed, stated cognizable claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Eighth Amendment, and for retaliation, and ordered service on Defendants Deputy Madrigal, Deputy…

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.