Bradley-Aboyade

Bradley-Aboyade v. Crozier

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 6, 20212:19-cv-01098California5,095 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TARYN BRADLEY-ABOYADE, No. 2:19-cv-01098-TLN-AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER OFFICER D. CROZIER, et al., Defendants. 16 This matter is before the Court on Defendants D. Crozier (“Crozier”), D. Hatch (“Hatch”), R. Salas (“Salas”), G. Schopf (“Schopf”), T. Collins (“Collins”), M. Gallegos (“Gallegos”), T. Heng (“Heng”), C. Larsen (“Larsen”), and R. Gonzalez’s (“Gonzalez”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff Taryn Bradley- Aboyade (“Plaintiff”) opposed the motion (ECF No. 39) and Defendants replied (ECF No. 40). For reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. /// /// /// /// /// I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This action arises from the death of Wayne Benjamin Bradley (“Decedent”) while he was in custody at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). (ECF No. 32 at 2.) …

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.