Mattingly

Mattingly v. Jurek

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 5, 20255:24-cv-04595California3,359 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MICHAEL JOSEPH MATTINGLY, Case No. 24-cv-04595-SVK

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN

v. PART AND DENYING IN

PART MOTION TO DISMISS

JAQUELINE JUREK, et al., WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND

DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 15 12 Self-represented Plaintiff accuses three police officers with the California Department of 13 Parks and Recreation (the “Department”) of arresting him without a valid warrant in violation of 14 his rights under the United States and California constitutions. See Dkt. 1 (the “Complaint”). He 15 commenced this action to recover against the officers (Jaqueline Jurek, Tyler Knapp and Trevor 16 Morgan), two supervising police captains (Gabe McKenna and Joe Walters) and the director of the 17 Department (Armondo Quintero). Defendants now move to dismiss, and Plaintiff moves to strike 18 that dismissal request. See Dkts. 11 (the “MTD”), 13, 15 (the “MTS”), 21, 22, 27. All necessary 19 Parties—Plaintiff and named Defendants—have consented to…

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.