(PC) Martirosyan v. St. Andre
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 RAFAEL MARTIROSYAN, No. 2:23-cv-01382-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 ST. ANDRE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed his original complaint in state court, and defendant St. Andre removed 19 the case to this court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff amended his complaint once before any screening 20 occurred. The court dismissed the first amended complaint (FAC) and the second amended 21 complaint (SAC) on screening for failure to state a cognizable claim. ECF Nos. 11, 16, 19, 24, 22 26. Plaintiff has since filed a third amended complaint (TAC), and defendant1 has filed a motion 23 requesting that the court screen it. ECF Nos. 27, 28. 24 Before he filed the TAC, plaintiff also filed an “Urgent Plea” which the court has 25 construed as a motion for a temporary restraining order (the “TRO Motion”). ECF No. 22.