Hogan

Williams v. Hogan

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 20221:22-cv-00044California591 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLIFTON WILLIAMS, JR, No. 1:22-cv-00044-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

PATRICK HOGAN, et al., THIS ACTION Defendants. (Doc. No. 9) 16 Plaintiff Clifton Williams, Jr, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil action on January 11, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 15, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint, in which plaintiff asserts a malicious prosecution claim against defendant Patrick Hogan (a deputy district attorney in Modesto) and defendant Katherine Blum (an officer with the Modesto Police Department), and found that plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 9.) In particular, the magistrate judge took judicial notice of the state 25 …

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.