Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190909_0002380.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 20:34:00
Document Index: 362117407

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

FindACase™ | Johnston v. Diaz
Johnston v. Diaz
JEREMIAH M. JOHNSTON, CDCR #AZ-0346, Plaintiff,
RALPH DIAZ; SCOTT KERNAN; DANIEL PARAMO; PAT CAVELLO; LT. RODRIGUEZ; D. HOUGH; S. CHAT; D. JAIME; M. VOONG; JANE/JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 6; RJD EMPLOYEES, Defendants.
ORDER: 1) DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; 2) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM; AND 3) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC. NOS. 10, 12]
Anthony J. Battaglia, Judge
On March 29, 2019, Jeremiah M. Johnston (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. / / / Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action when he filed his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), along with a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Doc. Nos. 2, 5.
On April 30, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP, denied his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and dismissed the entire action for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A. See Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended pleading to correct the deficiencies the Court identified in its Order. Id.
On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), along with a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Doc. Nos. 10, 12.
As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, a complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis is subject to sua sponte dismissal, however, if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (holding that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”).