Khan

Khan v. Hitchcock

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 20, 20202:17-cv-02169California2,979 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MUDDSAR KHAN, No. 2:17-cv-02169-MCE-AC Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CITY OF LODI, LODI POLICE

OFFICERS MICHAEL HITCHCOCK,

individually, (N) WOODS, individually, and DOES 1 through 30, jointly and severally, Defendants. 18 Through the present lawsuit, Plaintiff Muddsar Khan (“Plaintiff”) alleges he was wrongfully arrested following a negligently performed investigation that resulted in him being falsely implicated in a strong-arm robbery that allegedly occurred in Lodi, California. Plaintiff’s lawsuit names both the City of Lodi and two Lodi Police Officers, Michael Hitchcock and N. Woods, as Defendants. The Complaint includes fourteen causes of action, including two claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law claims premised on the California Constitution and California Civil Code § 52.1, and eight claims based on state common law, ///

1 This Memorandum and Order will refer to said…

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.