Legal Opinion

(PS) Trotter v. Con Am Group

District Court, E.D. California

Decided December 16, 2019No. 2:19-cv-01490Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CUPID MONIQUE TROTTER No. 2:19-cv-1490 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CON AM GROUP; CRSIENNA VISTA COMMUNITIES, 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Cupid Monique Trotter is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 19 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Pending before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) Therein, plaintiff complains about…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  5. Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

16 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