Tellez

Tellez v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 17, 20235:23-cv-00170California1,821 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

20 A. Standard of Review 21 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 22 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 23 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 24 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 25 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 26 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 27 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). B. Plaintiff’s Claims Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: (1) John Doe #1, Director of Adult Institutions of CDCR; (2) SVSP’s Warden; (3) John Doe #2, Chief of…

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.