Banuelos

(PC) Owens v. Banuelos

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 20242:19-cv-01683California3,600 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 THEON OWENS, No. 2:19-CV-01683-MCE-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 D. BANUELOS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second 19 amended complaint (SAC), ECF No. 68. Plaintiff has filed an opposition, ECF No. 73. 20 Defendants have filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, ECF No. 76. 21 In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all allegations of 22 material fact in the complaint as true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The 23 Court must also construe the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer 24 v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 25 738, 740 (1976); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). All 26 …

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.