Legal Opinion

(PC) Bennett v. Via Path Technologies

District Court, E.D. California

Decided May 29, 2025No. 2:24-cv-00769Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:24-cv-0769-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 VIA PATH TECHNOLOGIES, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 21 declaration that makes the showing…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  5. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API