Pfeiffer

(PC) Struggs v. Pfeiffer

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 10, 20201:18-cv-01336California774 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC LYNN STRUGGS, 1:18-cv-01336-NONE-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

vs. DISMISSED AS BARRED BY HECK V.

HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) AND

C. PFEIFFER, et al., EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Defendants.

(ECF No. 23.)

30-DAY DEADLINE

Cedric Lynn Struggs (“Plaintiff”) is a sta te prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On September 25, 2019, the court screened the Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim and violation of Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 16.) On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20.) On November 21, 2019, the court…

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.