Legal Opinion

(PC) Ramnanan v. Holmes

District Court, E.D. California

Decided October 8, 2021No. 2:21-cv-01113Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE RAMNANAN, No. 2:21-cv-1113 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 B. HOLMES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff paid the filing fee. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with 20 leave to amend. 21 Screening Standards 22 The court is required to screen complaints brought by…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. West v. AtkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988

39 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