Cota

(PC) Hammler v. Cota

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 6, 20202:19-cv-01423California1,527 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, No. 2:19-cv-1423 JAM JDP P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 E. COTA,et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel in this action brought pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 He has filed a second amended complaint (ECF No. 27) which the court must screen. 20 I. Legal Standards 21 Federal courts are required to screen cases in which prisoners seek redress from a 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the 24 complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or 25 “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.§ 1915A(b). 26 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a…

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.