Tolino

(PS) Patton v. Tolino

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 7, 20252:23-cv-00048California895 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MEIKO S. PATTON, Case No. 2:23-cv-0048-DJC-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DOUG TULINO, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action against Postmaster General Doug Tulino for employment discrimination. The third amended complaint’s allegations are, for screening purposes, sufficient to state potentially cognizable claims, and I will therefore direct service. 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 who is immune from such relief. Id. 27 1 Defendant Louis DeJoy was automatically substituted in for Doug Tulino under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). …

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.