Santoro
(PC) Manago v. Santoro
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEWART MANAGO, Case No. 1:21-cv-01464-ADA-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS CASE1
v. (Doc. No. 20) KELLY SANTORO, et al.,
FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is Plaintiff’s First 17 Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 20, “FAC”). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned 18 recommends the district court dismiss the First Amended Complaint because it fails to state any 19 cognizable constitutional claim.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
21 A plaintiff who commences an action while in prison is subject to the Prison Litigation 22 Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires, inter alia, the court to screen a complaint that seeks relief 23 against a governmental entity, its officers, or its employees before directing service upon any 24 defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requires the court to identify any cognizable claims and 25 dismiss the complaint, or any portion, if is frivolous or…