(PC) Puckett v. Lynch

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 6, 20242:23-cv-00903California2,304 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, No. 2:23-cv-00903 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, proceeds without counsel and seeks 19 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and request for leave to file 21 the first amended complaint are before the court. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) The request for leave to file the 22 first amended complaint is granted. The first amended complaint states a retaliation claim against 23 defendants Alfaro, Lozano, and Lynch and a due process claim against Alfaro. No other claims 24 are cognizable. Plaintiff may proceed on these claims or file a further amended complaint. 25 I. Screening Requirement 26 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 27 governmental entity or officer or employee…

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.