(PC) Koch v. Sacramento County

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROLAND THOMAS KOCH, No. 2:23-cv-00701 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, Roland Thomas Koch, proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) filed on January 16, 2024 (ECF No. 21 11) is before the court for screening. The SAC fails to state a claim and should be dismissed 22 without further leave to amend. 23 I. Screening Requirement 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 25 proceeding, and mut order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 26 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 27 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,…