Legal Opinion

Holmes v. Ojeda

District Court, D. Nevada

Decided June 20, 2025No. 2:24-cv-01468Unknown

1Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 DAVID HOLMES, Case No. 2:24-cv-01468-RFB-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER and AMENDED 6 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 PAMELA OJEDA, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff David Holmes’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 11 ECF No. 14. The Court reviewed the FAC and finds as follows. 12 I. Screening Standard 13 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which an incarcerated 14 person seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 15 See 28 U.S.C. §…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Thomas v. ArnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. West v. AtkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991

10 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