Henderson v. Bakersfield Police Department

INTRODUCTION

18 Octavio Jamal Henderson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On March 16, 2022, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and granted 22 Plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 12.) Currently before the 23 Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on April 8, 2022. (ECF No. 13.) For the 24 reasons discussed herein, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to 25 state a cognizable claim. 26 / / / 27 / / / II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT Notwithstanding any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time the Court determines that the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (section…