Greathouse

Greathouse v. City of Fresno

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 20251:24-cv-00715California2,912 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES GREATHOUSE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00715-JLT-BAM Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE THIRD

v. AMENDED COMPLAINT CITY OF FRESNO, et al., (Doc. 11) Defendants. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 Plaintiff James Greathouse is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 8, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and granted him leave to amend within thirty days. (Doc. 10.) Although untimely, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on December 18, 2024, is currently before the Court for screening. (Doc. 11.) I. Screening Requirement and Standard The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon…

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.