(PS) Allen v. City of Citrus Heights Police Dept.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CRAIG DOUGLAS ALLEN, No. 2:20–cv–1853–JAM–KJN PS Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
v. (ECF Nos. 13, 17.) CITRUS HEIGHTS POLICE DEPT., et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff filed a complaint and paid the filing fee. (ECF Nos. 1, 10, 11.) Defendant Citrus Heights Police Department filed a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e);1 plaintiff opposed and requested early discovery. (ECF Nos. 13, 15, 17.) Defendant’s Rule 12(e) motion is GRANTED,2 and Citrus Heights has 14 days to provide a substantive response to the discovery request.
22 1 Citation to the “Rule(s)” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise noted. 23 2 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). Under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, magistrate judges are granted authority to issue orders on “non-dispositive” matters. A motion for a more definite…