Macomber

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW B. CRAMER, Case No. 2:25-cv-1729-TLN-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brought this action in state court, and defendants have removed 19 it to this district.1 ECF No. 1. Such removed complaints are still subject to screening. See 20 Walker v. Departmental Review Bd., No. 2:17-cv-02191-AC-P, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176242, 21 2017 WL 11517550 *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017) (“The screening obligation applies where a 22 complaint is removed from state court.”). In my previous screening order, I found the complaint 23 deficient because it failed to meet federal pleading standards. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has filed an 24 amended complaint, ECF No. 13, that suffers from the same deficiencies. Accordingly, I 25 recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 26

27 1 Plaintiff has filed two motions to proceed in forma pauperis on…