Legal Opinion
Amy Kimmons v. Sacramento Sheriff Department, et al.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided May 11, 2026No. 2:26-cv-01512Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMY KIMMONS, No. 2:26-cv-1512-DC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SACRAMENTO SHERIFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DEPARTMENT, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Amy Kimmons proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. This matter is referred to 18 the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s second amended 19 complaint, titled “Eighth Amended Complaint” (SAC), is before the court for screening. For the 20 reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.