Alencastre

(PC) Khouanmany v. Alencastre

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 17, 20192:17-cv-01326California1,532 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY, No. 2:17-cv-1326-TLN-EFB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She has filed a motion to amend her complaint (ECF No. 101) which, for the reasons stated hereafter, should be denied. I. Procedural Background The procedural history of this case is, as the court explained in its March 28, 2019 order and recommendations, lengthy and troubled. ECF No. 73 at 1-2. Nevertheless, more than two years after this action was initially filed, the court found that plaintiff had stated – for screening purposes – a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Alencastre. Id. at 2. Service was directed for defendant Alencastre (ECF No. 77) and he filed an answer on June 24, 2019 (ECF No. 92). All other claims and defendants were dismissed on…

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.