Warden

MARIO BENNETT v. WARDEN FOR MULE CREEK STATE PRISON

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 24, 20252:24-cv-01587California1,350 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIO BENNETT, No. 2:24-cv-1587-TLN-SCR Plaintiff, v. WARDEN FOR MULE CREEK STATE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PRISON,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is an incarcerated individual representing himself in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by operation of Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is pending before the court for screening. ECF No. 18. I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In performing this screening function, the court must dismiss any claim that “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. §…

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.