Bacerra

I. INTRODUCTION

14 On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff Stephen Ralph Richardson filed this civil rights complaint 15 asserting three claims, all concerning an adverse decision against him from the California Physician 16 Assistant Board (“PAB”) and procedural steps taken subsequent to that decision. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 17 filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on November 4, 2019. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff’s first claim, 18 arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), alleges that the PAB violated his Fourteenth 19 Amendment right to procedural due process. Id. at 4. He next appears to allege that Title 16 of the 20 California Code of Regulations, § 1399.523.5, violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against ex 21 post facto laws. Id. Finally, he includes a claim that Defendants conspired to interfere with his civil 22 rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (“Section 1985(3)”). 23 On December 3, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss, and set their hearing on that motion for 24 January 9, 202 0. ECF No. 21. On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff lodged a Second Amended Complaint 25 appears to differ from the FAC in only one material respect – it corrects a misspelling as to one

3 …