Penunuri

Penunuri v. Davis

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 20203:19-cv-06112California1,801 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

19 Plaintiff Richard Penunuri has stated Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 20 against his jailors at San Quentin State Prison. The Court directs defendants to file in 21 response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such motion, on or 22 before May 18, 2020.

DISCUSSION

24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.…

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.