Macomber
(PS) Nible v. Macomber
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM LYLE NIBLE, Case No. 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (ECF Nos. 51, 67, 74, 75) 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 18 Plaintiff William Lyle Nible is proceeding in this action pro se.1 Pending before the 19 Court are the following motions: (A) Defendants Jeffrey Macomber, Tommee Dorsey, 20 Broomfield, St. Louis-Franklin, Stephanie Reyes, C. Lugar’s (collectively, “California 21 State Defendants”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 22 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 51); (B) Defendant H. Mosely’s2 motion for judgment on the pleadings 23 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 2 Defendant Mosely filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint on September 17, 25 2024. (ECF No. 16.) Defendant Mosely joins California State Defendants’ motion to 26 dismiss. (ECF No. 51, fn. 1.) However, Defendant Mosely has…