(PS) Hill v. City of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 6, 20232:22-cv-01625California7,688 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARNITHA HILL; TIANA FIELDS; No. 2:22-cv-01625 DJC AC (PS)

ANTHONY GRANDERSON;

BREJONNA GRANDERSON;

MONTREAL GRANDERSON; UNIQUE

FIELDS; MARLO HILL, ORDER and Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO; SGT.

ROBERT HAMM, #3018; OFFICER

ISREAL DELGADO, #358; OFFICER

BRETT MELLOCH, #602; OFFICER

DEREK CALABRESE, #1005; OFFICER

ERIC NEDELJKOVIC; OFFICER

JOSEPH SWALEH, #900, Defendants. 21 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this matter pro se, and pre-trial proceedings are accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Two motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 16) are before the court: (1) a Motion to Dismiss brought by defendant Officers Hamm, Delgado, Melloch, Calabrese, Nedeljkovic, and Swaleh (ECF No. 19), and (2) a Motion to Dismiss brought by the City of Sacramento (ECF No. 17). Plaintiffs oppose both motions. ECF No. 22. …

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.