Siemsen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL BENJAMIN TENORE, Case No. 2:25-cv-0071-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER RENEE SIEMSEN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this case alleging that defendants violated his due process rights when they denied him parole. ECF No. 1. On May 9, 2025, I screened the complaint and found that it failed to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. ECF No. 10 at 2-3. I dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Id. at 3. Pending is plaintiff’s objection and request to proceed, ECF No. 17, wherein he argues that my analysis is flawed and that his claim should be allowed to proceed. Specifically, he argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilkinson v. Dotson [544 U.S. 74 (2005)] “expressly found that a challenge to parole procedures was cognizable under §1983 without a prior favorable habeas petition.” ECF No. 17 at 3. I disagree, decline to reverse my screening analysis, and direct plaintiff to file an amended complaint…