Cox

Cox v. Ashcroft

Good Law
603 F. Supp. 2d 1261·2009 WL 416848·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12522
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 19, 2009CV-05-149-DCB PCalifornia5,841 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bury, J.

ORDER

The Wackenhut Defendants and the Federal Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint pursuant primarily to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, Billy Frank Cox (Cox), filed this action, arising out of his September 1, 1988 arrest, his subsequent criminal prosecution, and his incarceration at a privately owned federal facility in Taft, California. Cox, a pro se prisoner, brought this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , 1985.

Plaintiffs action was originally filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. Thereafter, a motion to dis miss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction), 12(b)(3) (improper venue) and 12(b)(4) (insufficiency of service of process) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted) was filed by the Wackenhut Defendants. The remaining Federal Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the same and…

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.