Lundy

(PC) Solano v. Lundy

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 30, 20252:25-cv-00797California2,155 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL SOLANO, Case No. 2:25-cv-0797-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER LEANNA LUNDY, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this § 1983 action against Warden Leanna Lundy and six John Doe defendants, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. ECF No. 1. The allegations fail to state a claim. Plaintiff may, if he chooses, file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies noted herein. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Screening and Pleading Requirements A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant…

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.