Murillo

Murillo v. Smith

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 8, 20254:25-cv-00230California2,583 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOAQUIN DANIEL MURILLO, Case No. 25-cv-00230-JST

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER OF PARTIAL SERVICE

v. 9

10 STEPHEN SMITH, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) in Soledad, 14 California, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this order, the Court screens 15 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave 16 to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. …

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.