Clemmons

(PC) Rodriguez v. Clemmons

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 16, 20202:20-cv-00173California1,914 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSE DeJESUS RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:20-cv-173-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER MICHELLE CLEMMONS, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel under section 1983, sued defendant Michelle Clemmons (“defendant”), a welfare case worker, for an alleged violation of his due process rights. Defendant has now filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has filed two oppositions, ECF Nos. 23 & 27, and defendant has filed a reply, ECF No. 25. I will grant defendant’s motion in part. Legal Standards A complaint may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility when the 27 1The…

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.