Rosen

(PC) Hood v. Rosen

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 30, 20232:23-cv-01980California1,306 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALFRED FITZGERALD HOOD, Case No. 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER FINDING THAT

THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A

v. COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND GRANTING

AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND

ROSEN, et al., ECF No. 1 Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND DENYING HIS MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL ECF Nos. 2 & 8 19 20 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Sierra Conservation Center, alleges that defendants Anderson, Rosen, Mara, Patton, Klein, and Rossi—all officers with the Roseville police department—and Rosen, a physician at the Sutter Roseville Medical Center, violated his rights in varied and ambiguous ways. The complaint, as articulated, does not meet federal pleading standards. I will give plaintiff leave to amend and will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No.…

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.