Anthony J. Davis v. Tuolumne County, et al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY J. DAVIS, No. 1:25-cv-00925-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE
v. TO THIS ACTION TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
Defendants. CERTAIN CLAIMS (ECF Nos. 7, 9) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
20 On September 5, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and found 21 that Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Hurtado, but failed to state 22 any other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 7.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second 23 amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the retaliation claim. (Id.) 24 On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be 25 cognizable. (ECF No. 9.) 26…