Sherman

(PC) Wilson v. Sherman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 10, 20241:22-cv-00874California6,381 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID W. WILSON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00874 JLT SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENATIONS TO

13 v. DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS

14 STUART SHERMAN, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff David W. Wilson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 The Court issued its First Screening Order on June 26, 2023, and found that Plaintiff’s 21 first amended complaint failed to state a claim against any named defendant. (Doc. 25 at 7-14.) 22 Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified 23 in the screening order. (Id. at 14-15.) On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second amended 24 complaint. (Doc. 26.) 25 On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request to “correct word errors” in the amended 26 complaint. (Doc. 27.) The following day, the Court issued its Order Re Plaintiff’s Request To 27 …

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.