DiTomas

(PC) Birrell v. DiTomas

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 20242:22-cv-01834California4,739 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL, aka Bella- No. 2:22-CV-1834-KJM-DMC-P Christina Birrell, 12 Plaintiff, 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 MICHELE DiTOMAS, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 20 Complaint. See ECF No. 19. Plaintiff has filed an opposition. See ECF No. 26. Defendants have 21 filed a reply. See ECF No. 28. 22 In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all allegations of 23 material fact in the complaint as true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The 24 Court must also construe the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer 25 v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 26 738, 740 (1976); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). All 27 ambiguities or doubts must also be…

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.