Guibord
(PC) Turner v. Guibord
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER, No. 2:19-cv-0416 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND SACRAMENTO CITY FIRE DEPT., et FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS al., 15 Defendants.
17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s three prior pleadings were screened and found to be devoid of a 19 cognizable claim. Plaintiff was granted one final opportunity to state a claim. The Court is now in 20 receipt of plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint.
I. Screening Requirements
22 “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or 23 appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or 24 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). This provision applies to all actions filed in forma pauperis, whether or not 26 the plaintiff is incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d…