(PC) DeOllas v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 31, 20232:22-cv-00906California2,227 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY EUGENE DeOLLAS II, No. 2:22-cv-0906 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Sacramento County Jail, proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is before the court for screening. (ECF No. 7.) The amended complaint’s allegations fail to state a claim. Plaintiff will be granted one final opportunity to allege additional facts. I. Screening Requirement 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…

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.