(PS)Ortiz

(PS)Ortiz v. Markey

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 20202:19-cv-02094California2,123 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RENE ORTIZ, No. 2:19-cv-2094 TLN DB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MARY MARKEY, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Rene Ortiz 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). Pending before the undersigned are plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF Nos. 7 & 8.) For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied and the undersigned recommends that defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on September 24, 2019, by filing a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court. (Compl. (ECF No. 1-1) at 4.1) Therein, plaintiff alleges that defendant, a…

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.