Enriquez

Jose Antonio Martinez v. Ruby Enriquez, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 24, 20251:25-cv-00854California391 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ, No. 1:25-cv-00854-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE

13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 RUBY ENRIQUEZ, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

15 Defendants. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 16 (ECF No. 16) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19

U.S.C. § 1983.

20 On October 3, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and found 21 that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for sexual harassment in violation of the Eighth 22 Amendment against Defendant Ruby Enriquez. (ECF No. 15.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave 23 to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the deliberate 24 indifference claim. (Id.) On October 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the 25 claim found to be cognizable. …

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.