Wortham

Wortham v. Waldura

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 16, 20203:20-cv-05394California1,667 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

17 Standard of Review 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Detailed facts are not necessary; the statement 27 need only give a defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). While a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and 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.