Haynes

(PS) Henreid v. Haynes

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 18, 20252:23-cv-02797California9,316 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAUL HENREID, No. 2:23-cv-2797-DJC-SCR Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RAYMOND NEAL HAYNES, DAVID SOTELO, and RICHARD SKAGGS, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Paul Henreid is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff is effectively seeking to relitigate in federal court a defamation lawsuit that he pursued and lost in state court. Pending before the undersigned is a joint motion by Defendants Richard Skaggs and Raymond Haynes to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 17), their joint motion for $10,000 in sanctions (ECF No. 18), and Defendant Judge David Sotelo’s motion to dismiss this action both for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (ECF No. 19). As explained below, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss all causes of action without leave to amend and grant…

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.