Brownen

(PC) Jones v. Brownen

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 26, 20232:22-cv-01707California369 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARCELL JONES, No. 2:22-cv-01707 KJM DB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS B. BROWNEN, et al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, 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). On April 10, 2023, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) and found it stated a claim against defendant Brownen under the First Amendment for retaliation and a claim against defendant Rangel under the Fourteenth Amendment for a due process violation. (ECF No. 11.) The undersigned found plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against defendant Rangel and any intended claims under the Sixth Amendment were not cognizable. (Id.) On May 5, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice stating his election to proceed on the complaint as screened. (ECF No. 14.) For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY…

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.