Legal Opinion

Dewayne A. Wright v. Percil, et al.

District Court, E.D. California

Decided February 10, 2026No. 2:24-cv-02739Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEWAYNE A. WRIGHT, No. 2:24-cv-02739 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PERCIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is detained in county jail and proceeds pro se with a civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) is before the undersigned for 19 screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 9. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s FAC 20 fails to state a cognizable claim for relief and will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff is 21 granted…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

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