Toor
(PC) Munoz v. Toor
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES MUNOZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-01201-JLT-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS CASE1
v. (Doc. No. 22) KIRAN TOOR, M.D.,
FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
Defendant. 16 Pending before the Court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 22, “SAC”). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the district court dismiss the SAC because it fails to state any cognizable constitutional claim. SCREENING REQUIREMENT Plaintiff commenced this action while in prison and is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires, inter alia, the court to screen any complaint that seeks relief against a governmental entity, its officers, or its employees before directing service upon any defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requires the Court to identify any cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint, or any portion,…