Newsom

(PC) Casto v. Newsom

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 6, 20202:19-cv-02209California3,239 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HERSHEL WAYNE CASTO, II, No. 2:19-cv-2209-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court screened the original complaint on April 22, 2020, found that plaintiff had failed to state sufficient facts to show that his claims were properly joined in one action and had failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, which is before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 9. I. Screening A. Requirement and Standards Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the…

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.