Redick III v. County of Tuolumne

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 6, 20251:25-cv-00453California4,953 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 STANLEY E. REDICK, III, Case No. 1:25-cv-00453-KES-EPG Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ADD “DEFENSE COUNSEL” AS

v. DEFENDANT ON THE DOCKET

COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE, et al., SCREENING ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO:

Defendants. (1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR

(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WANTS TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

19 20 Plaintiff Stanley E. Redick, III proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action 21 filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 14). Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on March 21, 2025, 22 generally challenges Defendants’ alleged misconduct regarding his past and ongoing state court 23 proceedings. (ECF No. 1). 24 Upon review of the complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state any 25 cognizable claims. Plaintiff now has two options on how to proceed:…

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.