Fonseca

(PC) Binh Tran v. Fonseca

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 20241:21-cv-00288California4,064 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BINH C. TRAN, Case No.: 1:21-cv-00288-CDB Plaintiff, SECOND SCREENING ORDER

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

V. FONSECA, et al., DEFENDANTS

Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

17 Plaintiff Binh C. Tran is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. I. INTRODUCTION The Court issued its First Screening Order on January 27, 2023. (Doc. 9.) The Court determined that Plaintiff stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Fonseca and Lopez but failed to state a cognizable claim against any other named defendant. (Id. at 3-11.) Plaintiff was directed to do one of the following within 30 days: (1) file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the order; (2) file a notice indicating…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.