(PS) Arafiles v. Safeway Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNY ARAFILES, No. 2:24-cv-02801-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAFEWAY, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the 17 undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed 18 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. The Court has also screened 20 the complaint, and concludes that, for screening purposes only, Plaintiff’s claims are sufficiently 21 cognizable and will therefore direct service. 22

I. SCREENING

23 A. Legal Standard 24 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In 27 reviewing the…