Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

(PC) Justus v. Doerer

District Court, E.D. California

Decided February 7, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00138Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT JUSTUS, No. 1:25-cv-00138-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 14 J.DOERER, et al., (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to Bivens 18 v.Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents,

403 U.S. 388

(1971). Plaintiff filed the instant 19 complaint on February 3, 2025. 20 I. 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 The Court is required to screen complaints…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Jones v. BockSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  5. Woodford v. NgoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API