Treasure Island Former and Current Residents v. United States of America
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 TREASURE ISLAND FORMER AND Case No. 20-cv-01328-JD CURRENT RESIDENTS, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER AND NOTICE TO PLAINTIFFS RE DISMISSAL v.
TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
13 The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ prior amended complaint because plaintiffs’ allegations were “so vague and perfunctory that they give defendants ‘little idea where to begin’ in preparing a response.” Dkt. No. 49 at 2 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 565 n.10 (2007)). Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, Dkt. No. 52, and, with the Court’s consent, Dkt. No. 83, a third amended complaint, Dkt. No. 84 (TAC), which is now the operative complaint. Several defendants filed motions to dismiss the TAC. Dkt. Nos. 86, 87, 88. The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and the TAC is dismissed. The TAC does not plausibly allege a Bivens claim against defendants Keith Forman and David Clark for “violation of…