Lehmann
Lehmann v. Lee
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 NATHAN DANIEL LEHMANN, Case No. 3:24-cv-02107-JD
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION AND
v. DISMISSAL
SOUSANNA “TES” LEE, et al., Defendants.
12 Pro se plaintiff Nathan Daniel Lehmann has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 13 No. 2. The request is denied, and the complaint is dismissed. 14 In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case sua 15 sponte if the party applying for in forma pauperis status files a frivolous action, fails to state a 16 claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 17 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court assesses whether there is an arguable 18 factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 19 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quote omitted); see also Williams v. Madrid, 609 20 F. App’x 421 (9th Cir. 2015). 21 The complaint is frivolous and at times not readily comprehensible. It…