Requiring plaintiff to get a demolition permit of a building fails to state a claim because “Plaintiffs’ legal theory that the \u2026 actions result in a violation of their fourth amendments rights is unclear and conclusory.” Macy v. San Bernardino Cty. Code Enf’t, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218656 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHowever, as currently pleaded these claims fail as a matter of law. At the outset, any malicious prosecution claims set forth in Castello’s complaint fails because they rest upon a fatally flawed legal premise. At bottom, the plaintiff seeks to bring a civil rights action premised on claims of malicious prosecution despite the fact that he was convicted at trial, sentenced, and has not set aside or overturned these convictions. [\u00b6] This he cannot do.\u201d Castello v. Arbogast, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217047 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner\u2019s 2254 claim was based on direct allegations that the Fourth Amendment was violated, and his objections to the R&R don\u2019t even respond to the Stone bar. Vaughn v. Warden Turbeville Corr. Inst., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217451 (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Requiring plaintiff to get a demolition permit of a building fails to state a claim because “Plaintiffs’ legal theory that the \u2026 actions result in a violation of their fourth amendments rights is unclear and conclusory.” Macy v. San Bernardino … Continue reading