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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO BENNETT, No. 2:24-cv-1587-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 WARDEN FOR MULE CREEK STATE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PRISON,

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is an incarcerated individual representing himself in this civil rights action filed 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by operation of 20 Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is pending before 21 the court for screening. ECF No. 18. 22 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 24 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In 25 performing this screening function, the court must dismiss any claim that “(1) is frivolous, 26 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief 27 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.