Legal Opinion

(PC) Lipsey v. Seitz

District Court, E.D. California

Decided February 14, 2020No. 1:18-cv-00766Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR., Case No. 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS S. KERNAN AS A 13 v. DEFENDANT 14 B. SEITZ, et al., (Doc. 26) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On December 13, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. 18 21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A and found that it states a cognizable retaliation claim 19 against B. Seitz, but fails to state cognizable claims against the remaining defendants. (Doc. 23.) 20 Accordingly,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. J. Wilkerson v. B. WheelerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014

12 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