Legal Opinion

(PC) Handy v. Castillo

District Court, E.D. California

Decided February 28, 2024No. 1:22-cv-01160Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HANDY, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01160-NODJ-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED FOLLOWING 14 DAVID CASTILLO, SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 Defendant. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 18 Plaintiff Michael Handy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 The Court issued its First Screening Order…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  5. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002

17 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