Bourke et al v. San Diego, City of et al
| Ken Bourke and Harland Lee Klutts |
| San Diego, City of, Michael Richmond, Robert Cervantes, Peter Kann and DOES 1 to 10 |
| 3:2014cv01047 |
| April 25, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Cynthia Bashant |
| Ruben B. Brooks |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
28
ORDER granting Defendants' 21 Motion to Dismiss. Although, Court finds Pla's First Amended Complaint is sufficient under Rule 8, it must fail under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a federal claim for which relief can be granted. Pla has already had one opportunity to amend his complaint, and the notices attached to the First Amended Complaint preclude his due process. Dfts' motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 10/7/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER granting Defendants' 4 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot Defendants' 4 Motion for More Definite Statement. Court grants with leave to amend Dfts' motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 41(b). If Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so by 3/16/2015. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 2/18/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
