Legal Opinion
Jimmie Earl Jones III v. S. Maxim, et al.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided January 30, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02894Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMIE EARL JONES III, No. 2:25-cv-2894-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. MAXIM, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). This provision…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, SheriffCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Johnson v. DuffyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Brodheim v. CryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- W. Michael Kimes J. Colette Boykin v. Peter G. Stone, Judge, Superior Court Robert L. Mezzetti, II Henry Mariani Robert MacHadoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Charles M. KEENAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank HALL, Director Oregon Department of Corrections, Et Al., Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.