Heslop

(PC) Wilkins v. Heslop

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 2, 20232:20-cv-01622California389 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEENAN WILKINS, No. 2:20-cv-01622 DJC DB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS S. HESLOP, 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 Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) and found it stated certain cognizable claims, but that other potential claims were not cognizable. (ECF No. 25 at 14.) Plaintiff has elected to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable and has declined to voluntarily dismiss the other claims. (See ECF No. 26.) For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons stated in the order filed on April 10, 2023 (ECF No. 25), IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 1. The court order that this case proceed only on the following claims: (1) against defendant S.…

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.