Card

Card v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 2, 20243:24-cv-00444California3,271 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. DISCUSSION

20 A. Standard of Review 21 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 24 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 26 27 Pleadings submitted by self-represented plaintiffs must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). B. Card’s Claims 1. Background Card has filed multiple actions in this Court, including a civil right action against the Union…

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.