Legal Opinion

(PS) McDaniel v. United States

District Court, E.D. California

Decided May 18, 2022No. 2:21-cv-01696Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MS. TANYA GRACE MCDANIEL, No. 2:21-cv-1696 WBS DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 UNITED STATES, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Tanya Grace McDaniel is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 18 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 Pending before the court are plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended 20 complaint, and defendants’ motions for a definite statement…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991

15 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