(PC) Stuckey v. State of California

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 20202:20-cv-00834California5,644 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, JR., No. 2:20-cv-0834-TLN-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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 complaint on May 13, 2020 and found that plaintiff had stated some cognizable claims and some that were not cognizable. ECF No. 7. The court provided plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint, which he has done. ECF No. 12.1 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.