Hubbs

Hubbs v. County of San Bernardino, CA

Good Law
538 F. Supp. 2d 1254·2008 WL 650411·2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36577
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 2008EDCV 06-0292-CBM(RC)California5,939 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marshall, J.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636 , the Court has reviewed the complaint along with the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman, and has made a de novo determination.

IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; (2) defendants’ Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is denied; (3) defendants’ motion is granted under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss without prejudice Claims 1a, 1c. 1d, 2b and 3 under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); (4) defendant Penrod’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Claim li against him in his individual capacity is granted; (5) defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Claims le, If, lg, lh and 2a is denied; and (6) defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Claims lb, li and l(j) is granted, albeit with leave to amend, and plaintiff shall, if he chooses to pursue these claims, file a Second Amended Complaint amending these claims and raising only these claims and Claims le, If, lg, lh and 2a, or, in the alternative, if he chooses not to pursue these claims,…

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.