McKinnon

(PS) Bizhko v. McKinnon

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 20212:21-cv-01137California420 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RUSLAN A. BIZHKO, No. 2:21-cv-1137-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND THOMAS McKINNON, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action with allegations against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Parole Board North Division, the appellate attorney for his criminal case and a fire investigator who testified against him. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). By order signed on July 27, 2021 (ECF No. 3), the court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and determined the complaint was subject to dismissal because it did not state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be…

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.