Newsom

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 8 JOHN BROSNAN, No. 2:24-cv-03639-TLN-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al. Defendants. 14 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the 15 undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed 16 in forma pauperis (“IFP”)1 and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. However, for the reasons 18 provided below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can 19 be granted and recommends this action be dismissed without leave to amend.

I. SCREENING

21 A. Legal Standard 22 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 23 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §…