Legal Opinion

Armando Rodriguez v. Michelle Padilla, et al.

District Court, E.D. California

Decided February 2, 2026No. 2:25-cv-01618Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:25-cv-1618 AC PC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and 14 MICHELLE PADILLA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

and 18 has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding 19 was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff has submitted a…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

21 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