Legal Opinion

(PS) Castaneda v. State of CA DMV

District Court, E.D. California

Decided December 16, 2024No. 2:24-cv-00788Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHERRISH CASTANEDA, No. 2:24-cv-0788 DC SCR PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, 15 et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 21 The motion to proceed…

2Cases cited42 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

37 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