(PC) Zinda v. Amador County Sheriff Dept.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAUL ZINDA, Case No. 2:22-cv-01990-KJM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER AMADOR COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants.
17 18 19 20 Plaintiff brings this section 1983 case against various defendants employed at the Amador County Jail. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff’s amended complaint states a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Martin. His other claims, however, are not cognizable. He may either proceed only with his claim against defendant Martin or delay serving any defendant and file another amended complaint.
27 28 Screening Order I. Screening and Pleading Requirements A federal court must screen a pro se litigant’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant…