Chronister

(PS) Cash v. Chronister

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 27, 20242:23-cv-01572California2,848 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHAWN PAUL CASH, et al., No. 2:23-CV-1572-DMC Plaintiffs, v. ORDER NATASHA CHRONISTER, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, bring this civil action. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' original complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under this screening provision, the Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this Court must dismiss an action if the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because Plaintiffs have been…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.