Cordoza

Smith v. Cordoza

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 22, 20241:24-cv-00200California1,436 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 CANDACE SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00200-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

13 v. (Doc. 6) 14 ALEXA CORDOZA,

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Candace Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 18 this civil action on February 14, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On April 8, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 19 complaint and granted her leave to amend within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff’s first 20 amended complaint, filed on May 16, 2024, is currently before the Court for screening. (Doc. 6.) 21 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 22 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 23 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 24 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 25 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a…

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.