Quiring

(PC) Casteneda v. Quiring

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 30, 20222:21-cv-02196California3,753 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LORENZO CASTENEDA, No. 2:21-cv-2196 DAD KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. QUIRING, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, 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 motion to amend and proposed amended complaint are before the court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted, and plaintiff’s claims against newly-added defendants Chamberlin and Arteaga are dismissed with leave to amend. Background On February 16, 2022, the court ordered that this case proceed on complaint against defendants Lt. J. Quirine, Sgt. K. McTaggart, Officer Roe, and Officer Medina for violating plaintiff’s Eighth and First Amendment rights (retaliation). (ECF No. 13 at 2.) The court’s discovery and scheduling order…

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.