Grant v. Briggs
Filing
13
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/5/2015 DISMISSING this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TRAVARE M. GRANT,
12
No. 2:15-cv-0864 CKD P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
R. L. BRIGGS,
15
ORDER
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, who seeks relief
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 14, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with thirty
19
days’ leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, now before the
20
court. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over all
21
proceedings in this action. (ECF No. 7.)
22
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
23
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
24
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
25
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
26
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
27
28
Having reviewed the amended complaint, the undersigned concludes that it fails to cure
the defects of the original complaint as discussed in the May 14, 2015 screening order. Because it
1
1
appears that another round of amendment would be futile, the undersigned will dismiss this action
2
for failure to state a claim.
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice for
4
failure to state a claim.
5
Dated: June 5, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
2 / gran0864.fac
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?