Legal Opinion
Cunningham v. Kramer
District Court, E.D. California
Decided April 15, 2016No. CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01362-AWI-MJS (PC)PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CORRECT DOCKET
(ECF No. 10)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Michael J. Seng, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document purporting to be a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) However, the purported complaint consisted of a form complaint…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Pearson v. CallahanSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Hope v. PelzerSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Wilson v. LayneSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Brosseau v. HaugenSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Atayde v. Napa State HospitalDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2017
- (HC) Sisounthone v. NeuschmidDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- (PC) Jackson v. Sacramento County JailDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- (PC) Jackson v. Sacramento County JailDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- (PC) McCoy v. MasseyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.