(PS) Murphy v. Travelers Insurance Co.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHANNON O. MURPHY, Case No. 2:24-cv-02589-TLN-CSK Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AS PREMATURE
TRAVELERS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
15 Defendant. (ECF No. 3) 16 Plaintiff Shannon O. Murphy, who is proceeding pro se, has moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. (ECF No. 2.) After determining whether IFP is appropriate and granting IFP, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff's Complaint, which was filed on September 25, 2024, has not yet been screened; thus, the Court has not yet determined whether the Complaint states any cognizable claim(s). Therefore, Defendant Travelers Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is denied as premature. See Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2007 WL 2990151, *2 (D. Az. Oct.…