(PC) Hampton v. Austin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GARY G. HAMPTON, JR., No. 2:20-CV-1001-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS E. WELSCH, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 29. Plaintiff has filed an opposition, ECF Nos. 38 and 39. Defendant has filed a reply, ECF No. 40. In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all allegations of material fact in the complaint as true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The Court must also construe the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). All ambiguities or doubts must also be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. See…