Oxley
Oxley v. Madrigal
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…