Mike

(PC) Quintero v. Mike

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20241:23-cv-01737California1,737 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

24 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 14, 2023. (ECF No. 1). 25 On May 15, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that Plaintiff failed to state 26 any cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file amended complaint. (ECF No. 10). 27 28 Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on May 28, 2024. (ECF No. 11). The Court again screened Plaintiff’s complaint, again found it failed to state any cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file amended complaint. (ECF No. 12). On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Notice of Removal.” (ECF No. 13). In the motion, Plaintiff sees “removal” of his federal cases and asks the Court to consolidate his cases pending in the Eastern and Southern Districts of California and to appoint him counsel. On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document that is labelled “Second Amended Complaint” (SAC). (ECF No. 14). However, the document appears to be a response to the Court’s screening order rather than an amended complaint. Even though it was filed on a standard “amended civil rights complaint” form, the form…

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.