Legal Opinion

(PC) Espino v. Arnold

District Court, E.D. California

Decided January 9, 2020No. 2:17-cv-02198Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN ESPINO, No. 2:17-cv-2198 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ERIC ARNOLD, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 17. 21 For the reasons stated below, the FAC will not be served and plaintiff will be given a second and 22…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt CuppCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  4. Johnson v. DuffyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
  5. Taylor v. ListCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989

24 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