(PC) Doe 2 v. Johnson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 7, 20242:24-cv-01844California4,210 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JANE DOE #2, No. 2:24-cv-1844 DJC AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MARCUS JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law and has paid the filing fee. I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by counsel, In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) (“District courts are required to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid the full filing fee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is represented by counsel, as [§ 1915A] does not differentiate between civil actions brought by prisoners.”). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion…

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.