Mendoza

(PC) Rodriguez v. Mendoza

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 26, 20211:21-cv-00410California3,110 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERLINDO RODRIGUEZ, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-00410-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO

v. ACTION MENDOZA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN

Defendants. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF Nos. 1, 10, 12)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17 I. Background Plaintiff Erlindo Rodriguez, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 12, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for failure to protect and excessive force against Defendant Mendoza in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for excessive force against Defendant Cambell in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants. (ECF No. 10.) The Court ordered Plaintiff…

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.