(PS) Osborne v. Tracy Police Dept

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE OSBORNE, No. 2:20-cv-1805-JAM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND

13 v. PLAINTIFF’S IFP APPLICATION 14 TRACY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., (ECF Nos. 9, 12.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, alleges multiple causes of 18 action against numerous officers of the Tracy Police Department.1 (ECF No. 8.) Currently 19 before the court are: (I) plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 9); and 20 (II) defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12.). The court now recommends:

21 (I) Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP should be denied; and (II) Regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss: 22 (A) plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims should be dismissed because 23 plaintiff has failed to assert plausible facts to state any claims, but leave to amend be granted on her claims against individual 24 officers;…