Flournoy

Flournoy v. Marin County

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 18, 20233:23-cv-00290California1,459 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

20 A. Standard of Review 21 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 24 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 25 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 26 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 27 Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). B. Legal Claims Plaintiff alleges that on December 29, 2022, a day after he arrived at MCJ, MCJ Classification Deputy Husk violated his due process rights by placing him…

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.