Diaz

(PC) Garcia v. Diaz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 20241:20-cv-00669California3,941 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

20 On December 4, 2023, this Court issued its Screening Order Re Plaintiff’s Third Amended 21 Complaint. (Doc. 29.) The Court found Plaintiff’s third amended complaint failed to state a claim 22 upon which relief could be granted against any of the three dozen defendants named therein. (Id. 23 at 9-19.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a fourth amended complaint, curing the deficiencies 24 identified in the screening order. (Id. at 19-20.) 25 On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed a fourth amended complaint. (Doc. 34.)

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

27 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court should dismiss a complaint if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See…

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.