Legal Opinion

(PS) Aderholt v. Cooper

District Court, E.D. California

Decided September 28, 2023No. 2:23-cv-01680Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL ADERHOLT, No. 2:23-cv-1680 DAD DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF JIM COOPER, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Daniel Aderholt is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 19 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 20 before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about the denial of a…

2Cases cited37 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. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

32 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