Hernandez

(PC) Villareal v. Hernandez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 20231:22-cv-01376California4,568 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ANTHONY VILLAREAL, Case No. 1:22-cv-01376-ADA-BAM (PC) Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. (ECF No. 8) HERNANDEZ, et al.,

SCREENING ORDER GRANTING

Defendants. PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY

COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

15 (ECF No. 8)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEAD-LINE

17 18 Plaintiff Anthony Villareal (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint was screened, 20 and he was provided leave to amend or to notify the Court that he wished to proceed on his 21 cognizable claim. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on February 22, 2023, is currently 22 before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 8.)

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 25 governmental entity…

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.