Hill

(PC) Garner v. Hill

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 20232:23-cv-00494California410 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARCUS ANDRE GARNER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00494-WBS-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER RICK HILL, et al., Defendants. 16 Defendant Warden Rick Hill removed this action from Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se. The court screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that it failed to allege a cognizable claim. ECF No. 9. After two extensions of time, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. ECF No. 14. Before the court had an opportunity to screen the amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, defendant Hill filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to Hill’s motion. ECF No. 16. Both motions are denied. The court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This obligation…

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.