Banuelos

Griggs v. Banuelos

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 3, 20251:25-cv-00613California1,381 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 MICHAEL GRIGGS Case No. 1:25-cv-00613-KES-SKO

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND

v. RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE

B ST E A D T I E SM A I C SS L E A D IM F OR FAILURE TO 13 JOHN BANUELOS, (Docs. 1, 4, 5) Defendant.

TWENTY-ONE-DAY DEADLINE

16 Plaintiff Michael Griggs is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 23, 2025. (Doc. 1). On May 28, 2025, the undersigned screened the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff stated no cognizable claims but providing Plaintiff with options to proceed. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed a response to the screening order on June 2, 2025, notifying the Court that he wished to stand on his complaint. (Doc. 5.) Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has twenty-one days…

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.