Evers
(PS) Gamino v. Evers
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDON MICHAEL GAMINO, No. 2:23-cv-03036-TLN-SCR Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JON EVERS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. This matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7)1. The Court has screened the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), as required by Section 1915(a)(2), and concludes that the SAC fails to state a claim. The Court recommends that the SAC be dismissed without further leave to amend.
I. SCREENING
22 A. Legal Standard 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 27 1 The docket sheet incorrectly states ECF No. 7 is the First Amended…