Bailey
Bailey v. County of Stanislaus
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DAVID MICHAEL BAILEY, No. 2:24-cv-03231-JAM-AC 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
12 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; DEPUTY
LARSON; DEPUTY ROSE; DEPUTY
13 GARCIA; CITY OF TURLOCK; DOE ONE; and DOES 2 through 10, 14 inclusive. 15 Defendants. 16 17 In this action, David Bailey (“Plaintiff”) brings claims 18 under Section 1983 and state law against the City of Turlock 19 (“the City”), including City officer Doe 1, and the County of 20 Stanislaus (“the County”), including County Deputies Larson, 21 Rose, and Garcia. Before the Court are two motions to dismiss. 22 First, the County and Deputies Larson, Rose, and Garcia move to 23 dismiss for failure to state a claim (hereinafter, “the County 24 Motion”). County Mot., ECF No. 24. Plaintiff opposed, and the 25 County replied. See County Opp’n, ECF No. 28; County Reply, ECF 26 No. 30. Second, the City moves to dismiss for failure to state a 27 claim (hereinafter, “the City Motion”). City Mot., ECF No. 27. 28 …