(PS) Ortega v. Hinjosa
District Court, E.D. California
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RHONDA ORTEGA, No. 2:22-cv-1406 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 TONY HINJOSA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Rhonda Ortega is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 18 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 19 before the court are plaintiff’s complaint, motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915, motion to appoint counsel, and “motion for court order.” (ECF Nos.…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.