(PC) Hudson v. Phillips
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 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
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.