(PS) Gamino v. Evers
District Court, E.D. California
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON MICHAEL GAMINO, No. 2:23-cv-03036-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JON EVERS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Amended 19 Complaint (ECF No. 7)1. The Court has screened the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), as 20 required by Section 1915(a)(2), and concludes that the SAC fails to state a claim. The Court…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.