Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01617/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01617-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

James J. Arendt, Esq. Bar No. 142937

Roy C. Santos, Esq. Bar No. 259718

WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP

1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF FRESNO, DAVID ALANIS, and LINDA PENNER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LORAN QUINN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, FRESNO

COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

OFFICER DAVID ALANIS, OFFICER

LEONARD RICHERT, FRESNO COUNTY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FRESNO

COUNTY JAIL, ET AL. and DOES 1 to 100

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-01617-OWW-SMS

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Date: May 2, 2011

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 3

The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger

On May 2, 2011, the matter of Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s third amended

complaint came before the Court for hearing. AttorneyRoyC. Santos appeared on behalf of the moving

parties. Attorney David M. Hollingsworth appeared via telephone on behalf of the plaintiff. After

considering the pleadings and documents filed with the Court, and receiving oral argument from counsel,

the Court previously ruled as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s medical care claim under section 1983 against Defendant ALANIS is

DISMISSED, without prejudice; 

2 Plaintiff’s first cause of action is DISMISSED, with prejudice;

3. Plaintiff’s second cause of action is DISMISSED, with prejudice;

____________________________

Order On Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s TAC

Case 1:10-cv-01617-LJO-BAM Document 42 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Plaintiff’s third cause of action is DISMISSED, without prejudice;

5. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of service of the

Memorandum Decision; and,

6. Defendants shall file a response within ten (10) days of service of the amended

complaint.

On May 20, 2011, Plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint within 14 days of service

of the Memorandum Decision, and as such, the Court hereby rules as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s third cause of action is DISMISSED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2011 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Court Judge

____________________________

Order On Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s TAC 2

Case 1:10-cv-01617-LJO-BAM Document 42 Filed 06/02/11 Page 2 of 2