Legal Opinion

(PC) Grissom v. Keenan

District Court, E.D. California

Decided April 22, 2025No. 2:24-cv-00926Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOWARD DUPREE GRISSOM, No. 2:24-cv-00926 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STEFANIE KEENAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 18

1983. Before the court are plaintiff’s complaint for screening (ECF No. 1) and application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). 20 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 21 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for this action, 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  5. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

25 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