Bick

(PC) Tunstall v. Bick

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 20192:16-cv-02604California4,737 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR., No. 2:16-CV-2604-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOSEPH BICK, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 57, docketed as plaintiff’s second amended complaint). Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as his First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if…

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.