Legal Opinion
(PC) Cuellar v. Aramark
District Court, E.D. California
Decided February 6, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01196Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRAVIS JUSTIN CUELLAR, No. 1:24-cv-01196-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO ADD ADDITIONAL CAUSES 13 v. OF ACTION AND DEFENDANTS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 ARAMARK, et al., (ECF No. 18) 15 Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY 16 DAYS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 4, 2024. 20 On November 26, 2024, the Court screening…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- George v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
- Owens v. HinsleyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2011
- Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Coughlin v. RogersCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- DirecTV, Inc. v. LetoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.