Scott
Scott v. Adventist Health Bakersfield
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FLOYD SCOTT, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01334-NODJ-CDB Plaintiff, SECOND SCREENING ORDER
v. 21-DAY DEADLINE
ADVENTIST HEALTH BAKERSFIELD, et al., 15 Defendants.
17 Plaintiff Floyd Scott is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 21 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 22 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, 23 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 24 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court should dismiss a complaint if 25 it lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal 26 theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th…