Loadholt

(PC) Patton v. Loadholt

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 15, 20222:19-cv-00451California3,291 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY L. PATTON, No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against defendant DiTomas raised in the fifth amended complaint. (ECF No. 122.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that defendants’ motion be granted. Legal Standard for 12(b)(6) Motion 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 for 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 plaintiff pleads…

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.