Truillo

(PC) Casey v. Truillo

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 15, 20201:20-cv-00560California761 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JAMES ARTHUR CASEY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00560-DAD-EPG (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE

13 v. (ECF No. 19)

14 J. TRUILLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 James Arthur Casey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on April 14, 2020. (ECF No. 1). 19 On June 17, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated a cognizable 20 claim. (ECF No. 14). The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service of the order 21 to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint, which the Court will screen in due course; b. 22 Notify the Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead 23 wants to proceed only on his claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment 24 against defendants Truillo, Garcia, Vera, Falcon, and…

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.