(PC) James v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 12, 20242:22-cv-02193California1,638 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, Case No. 2:22-cv-02193-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., ECF Nos. 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, & 60 15 Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

16

THAT PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS TO

17 AMEND COMPLAINT BE DENIED 18 ECF Nos. 48 & 54 19 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

20 21 Plaintiff has brought this § 1983 case against Sacramento County and several of its 22 employees for violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. On July 14, 2023, I found that the 23 sixth amended complaint contained viable claims against defendants Saucedo, Little, John Doe 2, 24 and certain unnamed deputies. ECF No. 39. I also found that it contained viable failure-to- 25 provide-medical-care claims against defendants Lynette, Alana, Babu, and Kuzmenko. Id. I 26 recommend that all other…

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.