Pierce

(PC) Pickett v. Pierce

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 22, 20252:24-cv-03182California1,670 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Case No. 2:24-cv-3182-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER JULEIGH PIERCE, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings his first amended complaint against Juleigh Pierce, K. Montgomery, Johnson, and Woo—staff at the California Medical Facility— alleging varying constitutional violations. ECF No. 12. The allegations fail to state a claim. Plaintiff may, if he chooses, file a second amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies noted herein. 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 28 …

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.