Alsup
(PS) Swartz v. Alsup
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JESSE F. SWARTZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-02112-DC-CSK PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
WILLIAM ALSUP, et al., (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 8, 15, 16) Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Jesse F. Swartz is representing himself in this action against Defendants William Alsup, James Thomson, and Marissa Harris.1 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial showing. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request. I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for IFP status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every IFP proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary 27 This…