Miguel

(PC) Reed v. Miguel

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 8, 20201:20-cv-00121California2,432 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TAMECUS REED, Case No. 1:20-cv-00121-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.

OR NOTIFY THE COURT OF HIS

M. MIGUEL, et al., DESIRE TO PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIM

FOUND COGNIZABLE

Defendants. (Doc. 1)

21-DAY DEADLINE

Tamecus Reed alleges the defendants retaliated against him and denied him due process. (Doc. 1.) The Court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants M. Miguel and A. Sasin. He does not, however, state a cognizable due process claim against the defendants. Therefore, the Court directs Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in this order or file a notice that he wishes to proceed only on his retaliation claim and to dismiss his due process claim and Defendants C. Beltran and W. Cotter. I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief…

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.