Johnston

Johnston v. Merced District Attorney's Office

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 25, 20191:19-cv-00926California3,615 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 TYRONE JOHNSTON, Case No. 1:19-cv-00926-AWI-EPG 11 Plaintiff, S CREENING ORDER v. O RDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO: (1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

MERCED DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OR

OFFICE, et al., (2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES Defendants. TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT, SUBJECT

TO THE COURT ISSUING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO A DISTRICT

JUDGE CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER

18 (ECF NO. 1)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

21 Plaintiff, Tyrone Johnston, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action on July 8, 2019, by filing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging law enforcement misconduct. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is before the Court for screening. The Court finds that the Complaint fails to state any cognizable claim. After Plaintiff reviews this order, Plaintiff can decide to file an amended complaint, which states clearly what each person did and why he believes it violates his constitutional 28 …

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.