Warden

(PC) Beeson v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 20, 20242:23-cv-01621California700 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 TAYLOR A. BEESON, No. 2:23-cv-1621 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, F.C.I. HERLONG, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action against employees of 18 the Federal Bureau of Prisons. On September 1, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with 19 leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. 20 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 21 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 22 Having conducted the required screening the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on a 23 claim for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and a claim for retaliation 24 for protected conduct arising under the First Amendment against defendant Lt. Birtwell. 25 At this point, plaintiff has two options: he can proceed immediately on the claims 26 identified above or he can…

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.