Legal Opinion

(PS) Alfaro Buttany v. Greyhound Corporation

District Court, E.D. California

Decided November 1, 2019No. 2:19-cv-02063Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHALLA C. ALFARO BUTTANY, No. 2:19-cv-02063 MCE AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GREYHOUND CORPORATION, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 20 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ECF No. 2. The motion…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991

12 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