Mills

(PC) Hatton v. Mills

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 12, 20222:21-cv-02416California1,217 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIC DEWAYNE HATTON, No. 2:21-cv-2416 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

MILLS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now before the court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s amended complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. Screening Standards The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or…

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.