Huupe

Henderson v. Huupe

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 20251:24-cv-00046California1,637 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUKAS HENDERSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00046-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO

13 v. ACTION 14 HUUPE, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

15 Defendant. (Doc. 6) 16

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

17 18 19 Plaintiff Lukas Henderson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 20 this civil action on January 10, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On June 4, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 21 complaint and granted him leave to amend. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed 22 on July 1, 2025, is currently before the Court for screening. (Doc. 6.) 23 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 24 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 25 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 26 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to…

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.