Legal Opinion

Daniel W. Rannels v. Kenneth C. Twisselman, II, et al.

District Court, E.D. California

Decided June 10, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00967Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL W. RANNELS, Case No. 1:26-cv-00967-KES-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED, v. WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT 14 FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR KENNETH C. TWISSELMAN, II, et al., FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 12) 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 17 THIRTY DAYS 18 Plaintiff Daniel W. Rannels is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed his initial 20…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. West v. AtkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. J. Wilkerson v. B. WheelerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014

25 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