Hanson

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGER GIFFORD, No. 2:21-CV-0119-DJC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MICHELE HANSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See ECF No. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff has filed an 19 opposition. See ECF No. 45. Defendants have filed a reply. See ECF No. 47. After a hearing 20 before the undersigned, the matter was submitted. 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 ambiguities or…