Pesce

(PC) Montezello v. Pesce

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 23, 20212:21-cv-00906California1,452 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAYMOND MONTEZELLO aka ROY A. No. 2:21-cv-0906-EFB P

MONTES,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. PESCE, et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has paid the filing fee. Screening Standards Notwithstanding payment of the filing fee, the court must screen plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of 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.