Legal Opinion

(PS) Whitsitt v. City of Stockton

District Court, E.D. California

Decided June 2, 2020No. 2:20-cv-00131Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, No. 2:20-cv-00131 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CITY OF STOCKTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff was previously granted authority to proceed in 19 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ECF No. 3. His initial complaint was 20 rejected with leave to amend.

Id.

Plaintiff submitted a First Amended Complaint…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994

17 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