Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00214/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00214-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CRAIG D. ALLEN, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT,and CG SERVICES, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0214 MCE GGH 

ORDER 

 The court held a hearing on defendant GC1

 Services Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. 

Plaintiff, who is prosecuting pro se, appeared for plaintiff and attorney Renee Ohlendorf appeared 

on behalf of GC Services. The basis of the Motion was that GC service was simply an entity to 

which plaintiff’s criminal fine debt had been referred, but that no charging allegations had been 

made against this entity aside from the mere fact of referral. 

It was disclosed in the course of the hearing that GC Services is a private contract 

collection entity that performs services for the Sacramento County Superior Court upon request. 

However, it was further disclosed that GC’s responsibility for collection in connection with funds 

 

1

 It was made clear at the hearing that name CF Services, which appears in the caption, is a 

misnomer for GC Services. 

Case 2:16-cv-00214-MCE-GGH Document 29 Filed 01/20/17 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 

2

allegedly owed the superior court by plaintiff has been terminated, and the Superior Court is now 

responsible for any further activities regarding the criminal fine, et al. owed. 

 In light of the foregoing the parties stipulated on the record that GC Services would be 

dismissed from the action without objection. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint against GC Services is dismissed. 

ECF # 21 is resolved. 

Dated: January 19, 2017 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00214-MCE-GGH Document 29 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 2