Ankintola

(PC) Foust v. Ankintola

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 10, 20242:23-cv-01208California2,300 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARL FOUST, No. 2:23-cv-1208 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER OMONIYI TEMITOPE ANKINTOLA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 26) and request for evidence which the court construes as a motion to compel (ECF No. 25). I. Third Amended Complaint A. 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). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks…

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.