Motley

Motley v. Parks

Good Law
2000 WL 1943048·198 F.R.D. 532·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20220
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 15, 2000No. CV 00-01472 MMM (BQRx)California1,453 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Morrow, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

On February 10, 2000, plaintiffs Motley and Jamerson filed this action alleging viola *533 tions of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). Plaintiffs assert that officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”), a state parole agent, and agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“BATF”) illegally entered and searched their home, and unlawfully arrested them. Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims assert that defendants violated and conspired to violate their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and not to be subjected to unreasonable and excessive force. Them § 1985(3) claim alleges that defendants conspired to violate their right to equal protection of the laws by discriminating against them on the basis of race.

Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint seeks to name Gregory Kading, Al Ruegg, Steve Wynn, Paul Me Connell, James Black, and Lawrence Webster as defendants. It adds no new claims to those presently pleaded. Defendants Bernard Parks and Daryl Gates oppose amendment on the basis that plaintiffs failed to serve…

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.