Heslop

(PC) Wilkins v. Heslop

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 10, 20232:20-cv-01622California5,403 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEENAN WILKINS, No. 2:20-cv-01622 KJM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER S. HESLOP, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action in the San Joaquin County Superior Court. Defendants removed the present action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) as plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff claims defendants used unnecessary force, retaliated against the plaintiff, and violated his due process and equal protection rights. Plaintiff also asserts a number of claims under the California Civil Code. Before the court is plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for screening. (ECF No. 20.) For the reasons stated below, plaintiff will be given the option to proceed on his cognizable claims or be given leave to file an amended complaint. SCREENING I. Legal Standards The court is required to screen complaints brought by…

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.