(PS) Castaneda v. State of CA DMV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHERRISH CASTANEDA, No. 2:24-cv-0788 DC SCR PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP, ECF No. 3, will be granted. However, in screening Plaintiff’s Complaint, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court concludes that the Complaint fails to state a claim. As explained below, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s claim under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 and against Defendant State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) be dismissed with prejudice, and that Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 26 …