Mullin
Tyghe James Mullin v. City of Mountain View, California, et al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 TYGHE JAMES MULLIN, Case No. 5:25-cv-02191-BLF
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING THIRD
v. AMENDED COMPLAINT
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, [Re: ECF No. 75] CALIFORNIA, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Tyghe James Mullin’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). ECF No. 75 (“Mot.”); ECF No. 80 (“Reply”). Mr. Mullin opposes the motion. ECF No. 78 (“Opp.”). The motion is suitable for decision without oral argument; the hearing set for March 26, 2026, is VACATED. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). The motion is GRANTED. The TAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. I. BACKGROUND On March 3, 2025, Mr. Mullin initiated this action and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. Shortly thereafter, he filed a first amended complaint as of right, asserting § 1983 claims for (1) unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth …