Jennings

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA RIVAS, et Case No. 20-cv-02731-VC al., Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS, MOTION TO STRIKE, AND

Vv. MOTION TO TRANSFER DAVID JENNINGS, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 979 Defendants. The motion to dismiss is denied. The GEO defendants clearly qualify as state actors for purposes of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim for the reasons set forth in Pollard v. The GEO Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 843, 854-58 (9th Cir. 2010), reversed on other grounds by Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (2012), as well as in Judge Motz’s concurrence in Holly v. Scott, 434 F.3d 287, 297-302 (4th Cir. 2006) (Motz, J., concurring). The motion to strike is denied as unnecessary. It is understood that to the extent the plaintiffs are seeking habeas relief, they will not be able to obtain it by way of a judgment against the GEO defendants. See Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1183-1187 (N.D. Cal. 2017). There is no need to strike anything from the complaint. The motion to transfer is denied as frivolous. A transfer at this late stage of the case…