Becerra

(PS) Giddens v. Becerra

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 5, 20202:19-cv-01263California1,977 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD GIDDENS, No. 2:19-cv-1263 TLN DB PS Plaintiff, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official ORDER capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; and SOLANO COUNTY, Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Richard Giddens is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff commenced this action on July 9, 2019, by filing a complaint and paying the required filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, generally, that California Penal Code § 22900 prohibits the possession of pepper spray in violation of plaintiff’s rights under the Second Amendment, and that Solano County has repeatedly prosecuted plaintiff in violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. On July 30, 2019, defendant Xavier Becerra filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) That same day defendant Solano County also filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 12.) …

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.