Honea

(PC) Linarez-Rodriguez v. Honea

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 2, 20242:22-cv-01692California3,040 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAUL DANIEL LINAREZ- No. 2:22-cv-1692 KJN P

RODRIGUEZ,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KORY L. HONEA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a Butte County Jail inmate, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is before the court. As discussed below, the third amended complaint states a potentially cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim as to defendant Rayome but fails to state cognizable claims against defendants Foster and Perez, who should be dismissed from this action. Screening Standards The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a…

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.