Navarro

(PC) Dixon v. Navarro

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 27, 20202:19-cv-01966California2,652 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 DELMAR JEWELL DIXON, JR., No. 2:19-cv-1966-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOE LIZARRAGA, et al., Defendants. 14 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court screened the amended complaint on April 28, 2020 and found that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim against any defendant. ECF No. 15. The court provided plaintiff with an opportunity to file a second amended complaint, which he has done. ECF No. 18. I. Screening 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 complaint, if 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.