Arzola v. Robles, et al., No. 1:2020cv00816 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING In Part and Denying In Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint; ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Amend Her Complaint, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/22/2022. Amended Complaint due within THIRTY DAYS. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEJANDRA ARZOLA, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. OSCAR ROBLES and CITY OF WOODLAKE, No. 1:20-cv-00816-JLT-SKO (HC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 20) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT 17 18 19 Alejandra Arzola filed a complaint alleging a violation of her civil rights pursuant to 42 20 U.S.C. § 1983 under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as various state torts. (Doc. 21 1.) On June 15, 2020, Defendant City of Woodlake, joined by Defendant Robles, filed a motion 22 to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) based on violation of the 23 statute of limitations. (Docs. 3, 4.) The motion was referred to the assigned magistrate judge on 24 January 26, 2021, for preparation of Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 25 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 26 On September 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and 27 Recommendations to grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. 28 (Doc. 20.) On October 5, 2021, Defendant City of Woodlake filed objections. (Doc. 21.) On 1 1 2 October 6, 2021, Defendant Robles joined in the objections. (Doc. 22.) According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 3 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Defendants’ objections, the Court 4 concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are supported by the 5 record and proper analysis. Thus, 6 1. 7 The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 28, 2021, (Doc. 20), are adopted in full; 8 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 3), is granted in part and denied in part; 9 3. Plaintiff is directed to amend her complaint to include only her timely claims 10 within thirty days of the date of service of this order. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 22, 2022 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.