Legal Opinion

(PS) Shook v. McLeod

District Court, E.D. California

Decided June 17, 2020No. 2:20-cv-01146Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFORY LYNN SHOOK, No. 2:20-cv-01146 JAM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAM McLEOD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who began this case as a state prisoner proceeding pro se but has since been 18 released from custody, seeks relief pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

and has requested leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this 20 court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

18 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