Legal Opinion

(PC) Hankins v. Sacramento County

District Court, E.D. California

Decided April 17, 2025No. 2:24-cv-00150Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMIAH HANKINS, No. 2:24-cv-0150 TLN SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 18

1983. Before the court are plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 14 and 15) and first 19 amended complaint (“FAC”) for screening. (ECF No. 16.) For the reasons described below, the 20 undersigned denies plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel and finds plaintiff’s FAC states a 21…

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. 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. 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