Felix

Felix v. Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 12, 20245:24-cv-00193California1,994 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 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, however, be liberally 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). II. Plaintiff’s Claims Plaintiff names only the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney as Defendant in this action. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages. Id. at 3. …

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.