Fordyce

Fordyce v. Smith

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 20253:24-cv-08409California1,136 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

13 Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983 against the following officials at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”): Warden S. Smith, 15 Chief Executive Officer Katy Minor, Chief Support Executive J. Dark and Dentist J. Herzog. 16 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons 17 explained below, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief and is granted leave to file an 18 amended complaint. 19

STANDARD OF REVIEW

20 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 23 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 24 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 25 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 26 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 27…

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.