Legal Opinion

(PC) Hudson v. Phillips

District Court, E.D. California

Decided June 23, 2025No. 2:23-cv-01821Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEONDRE T. HUDSON, No. 2:23-cv-01821 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PHILLIPS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) is before the 19 undersigned for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the 20 undersigns finds that plaintiff’s FAC fails to state any cognizable claims. Plaintiff will be given 21 an…

2Cases cited39 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. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

34 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