LLoyd

(PS) Alston v. LLoyd

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 7, 20232:18-cv-02420California3,761 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIC ANTHONY ALSTON, JR., 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, Eric Anthony Alston, Jr., proceeds pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 94.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the undersigned takes the motion under submission on the record and briefs on file. The hearing noticed for June 14, 2023, is vacated. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the motion be granted in part, and plaintiff be granted 30 days to file a first amended complaint adding a claim under the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable seizure/excessive force against defendant Ball, claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for failure to protect against Ball and Madriago, and claims under the Bane…

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.