Legal Opinion

Henry Ortiz v. Doug V. Mull, et al.

District Court, E.D. California

Decided January 20, 2026No. 2:25-cv-00028Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENRY ORTIZ, No. 2:25-cv-0028-DC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DOUG V. MULL, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Henry Ortiz proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. This matter is referred to the 18 undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s second amended 19 complaint (“SAC”) is before the court for screening. The undersigned will recommend the SAC 20 be dismissed without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 21 I.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. West v. AtkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  5. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001

13 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