Howard

(PC) Patterson v. Howard

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 20201:20-cv-00751California540 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN D. PATTERSON, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00751-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO v. ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO

THIS ACTION

MAURICE HOWARD, et al., ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN ) CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ) ) [ECF No. 9] )

Plaintiff Bryan D. Patterson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 2, 2020, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable free exercise claim under the First Amendment against Defendants Maurice Howard and John Doe. (ECF No. 8.) However, Plaintiff was advised that he failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff was advised that he could file an amended complaint or a notice of intent to proceed 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.