Dyer

Dyer v. Warden of Mendocino County Jail

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 2, 20243:23-cv-05762California1,684 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

13 Plaintiff, an inmate in Mendocino County Jail (“MCJ”), filed this civil rights action under 14 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the unnamed MCJ Warden, two other unnamed “Doe” Defendants, and 15 “Naph-Care,” an entity that allegedly provides medical care services at MCJ. Leave to proceed in 16 forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is 17 DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motions are also addressed below. 18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 22 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 23 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 24 § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by unrepresented parties must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 25 Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,…

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.