Richter

Richter v. Ausmus

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 19, 20203:19-cv-08300-WHOCalifornia609 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JULIA RICHTER, Case No. 19-cv-08300-WHO

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. RECONSIDERATION

LISA AUSMUS, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff Julia Richter filed a motion to alter or amend my March 24, 2020 order dismissing with prejudice her third, fifth, tenth, seventeenth, and twenty-first causes of action. Dkt. No. 31. Richter moves to reconsider the dismissal of her third cause of action. Richter’s motion is DENIED. Although Richter has not identified any arguments that are appropriate pursuant to Rule 59 or 60, I address her arguments below for clarity. In my March 24 order, I dismissed Richter’s third, fifth, tenth, and seventeenth causes of action with prejudice because Richter was not subject to criminal prosecution. See Dkt. No. 28 at 11. However, I noted that Richter could state a claim for other substantive or procedural due process violations. Id. at 8. Richter first argues that dismissal of her…

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.