(PC) Van den Heuvel v. Strancener
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 JOHN MARK VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:23-cv-0278 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARREN C. STRANCENER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former1 county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. For the reasons set forth 19 below, the undersigned will direct plaintiff to submit an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application and 20 dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. 21 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.