Thaut v. Hsieh

2 Citing cases

  1. Turner v. ILG Techs.

    2:21-cv-04192-NKL (W.D. Mo. Sep. 28, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    [her] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” the “factual contentions have evidentiary support[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P 11(b)(3) (emphasis added); see also Moore v. Rosenblatt, 15-cv-8021, 2016 WL 6783341, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (warning a Pro Se plaintiff that it appeared his complaint violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 because his allegations appeared to be supported by facts that he could not personally know or support) (subsequent history omitted); Gordon v. Target Corp., 20-CV-9589, 2022 WL 836773, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022) (warning plaintiff to only file a second amended complaint if she has a good faith basis to do so).See also Thaut v. Hsieh, 15-CV-0590, 2015 WL 4508779, at *16 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (warning pro se plaintiffs that they should not pursue claims if, given the deficiencies identified by the court, they “cannot in good faith allege facts” necessary to support their claims); Robinson v. City of Las Vegas, 22-CV-00174, 2022 WL 656364, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 4, 2022) (warning plaintiff that any amendment in response to deficiencies identified by the court must be truthful and have good faith evidentiary support). Ms. Turner should only file a Second Amended Complaint if she can plead the additional facts necessary to support her theory of ILG's duty and breach of that duty.

  2. Hammler v. Davis

    No. 2:14-cv-2073 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Id. at 1269. In contrast, federal prisoner civil rights cases applying res judicata have rested on the court's finding that plaintiff sought to vindicate the same primary right both in his state and federal actions. See, e.g., Lyons v. Traquina, 2010 WL 3069336, at *4-5, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78527, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2010) (Case No. 2:06-cv-2339 RT P) (Section 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs sought to vindicate the same primary right adjudicated in plaintiff's state court negligence action which was against the same defendant based on the same medical procedure); accord, Thaut v. Hsieh, 2015 WL 4508779, at *15-16, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97115, at *39 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (Case No. 2:15-cv-0590 JAM KJN PS) (plaintiff's state negligence action and federal Eighth Amendment claim asserted the same primary right challenging plaintiff's medical care because "based on the exact same factual background and alleged injury"); Davenport v. Campoy, 1991 WL 266388 at *2, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30016, at *4-5 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 1991) (Case No. 91-15171) (plaintiff's mandamus action in state court involved the same primary right to receive adequate medical treatment as his federal Section 1983 action for deliberate indifference to his medical needs); see also Furnace v. Giurbino, 2013 WL 6157954, at *5, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166648, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2013) (Case No. 12-cv-0873 LHK PR P) (myriad Section 1983 claims sought to vindicate the same primary right plaintiff pursued in state court to remain free from segregated housing, involving same incident and same actors); Fargo v. Borg, 1992 WL 188103, at *1, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19096, at *3 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 1992) (Case No. 91-16497) (plaintif