Wilson
(PC) Barra v. Wilson
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY LAWRENCE BARRA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00069-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
WILSON, ZIEGLER, and SCOTTI, DISMISS CASE1 Defendants. (Doc. No. 13) FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 17 Pending before the Court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is Plaintiff’s Second 18 Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 13, “SAC”). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned 19 recommends the district court dismiss the SAC because it fails to state any cognizable federal 20 claim.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
22 A plaintiff who commences an action while in prison is subject to the Prison Litigation 23 Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires, inter alia, the court to screen a complaint that seeks relief 24 against a governmental entity, its officers, or its employees before directing service upon any 25 defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requires the court to identify any cognizable claims…