Duncan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RADNI GHAFOORI, No. 2:24-cv-03306-DJC-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER OFFICER DUNCAN, et al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by operation of Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed 19 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP is granted. Granting IFP status does not end the court’s 21 inquiry, however, as the Court is required by Section 1915(e)(2) to screen the complaint and must 22 dismiss an action if it is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 23 granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915(e)(2). The Court concludes that, for screening purposes only, Plaintiff’s claims are 25 sufficiently cognizable and directs service. 26 //// 27 //// 28 …