(PC) Petillo v. CSP Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DENNIS PETILLO, JR., No. 2:23-cv-2286-CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND CSP SACRAMENTO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Dennis Petillo, Jr., a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) is before the court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the SAC fails to state a claim and should be dismissed without further leave to amend. I. Screening Requirement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.…