(PS) Rigor v. Sacramento Regional Transit
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 SORAYA MARIA RIGOR, No. 2:25-cv-00243-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 19 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s response to 20 the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”). The Court now recommends, pursuant to its screening 21 obligation under Plaintiff 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), that this action…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.