(PC) Allen v. Sacramento County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY LEE ALLEN, No. 2:21-cv-00344 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by “bad living conditions” due to COVID-19. (ECF No. 30 at 3.) Before the court is plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for screening (ECF No. 30) and plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 31.) For the reasons stated below, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s TAC with leave to amend and deny plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice. SCREENING I. Legal Standards The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a…