I had stopped following Allen McCloskey's lawsuit against HCSO and DHHS for ICWA violations, malicious prosecution and other causes of actions in federal court after Judge Robert M. Illman found Humboldt County's motion to dismiss as moot.
Allen sends me the above image with nothing else. His emails are nonsensical but this one literally had nothing else. I looked up his case. If you want to know if anything happened after November 2023, get PACER and look it up.
Search all cases and statutes...
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
McCloskey v. Humboldt Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
United States District Court, Northern District of California
Nov 14, 2023
23-cv-01699-RMI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2023)
23-cv-01699-RMI
11-14-2023
ALLEN D. MCCLOSKEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ROBERT M. ILLMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NO. 25
ROBERT M. ILLMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (dkt. 25) Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (dkt. 22). Plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition (dkt. 27), and Defendants have filed a reply (dkt. 30). Additionally, after the filing of Defendants' dismissal motion, Plaintiffs submitted a request (dkt. 26) to file a voluminous “confidential” supplement to the FAC, under seal, spanning approximately 320-pages. Defendants have filed a response (dkt. 29) opposing Plaintiffs' request to supplement. Plaintiffs then filed a request (dkt. 32) seeking to supplement the FAC, for which Defendants have also filed a response in opposition (dkt. 33). These matters having been fully briefed, as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds them suitable for disposition without oral argument. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion to dismiss the FAC with prejudice is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs' FAC is dismissed with leave to amend as set forth herein. Further, Plaintiffs' requests to supplement the FAC (dkts. 26, 32) are denied.
To survive dismissal under these standards, while complaints do not necessarily need to be hyper-detailed, they do need to contain enough relevant factual allegations such as to establish the grounds of a plaintiff's entitlement to relief - and, doing so “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . .
https://casetext.com/case/mccloskey-v-humboldt-cnty-sheriffs-dept-1#:~:text=In%20this%20regard%2C%20the%20FAC,undescribed%20citation%20only%20to%20later
Related posts:
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/07/mccloskey-wont-get-appointed-counsel.html?m=1
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.