(PS) Storman v. County of Sacramento

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL D. STORMAN, No. 2:24-cv-03658-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned 18 pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The Court will defer ruling on the motion because portions of it are illegible. 21 Plaintiff’s complaint is also almost entirely illegible. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, the Court will 22 allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that is legible and Plaintiff shall also resubmit his 23 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 24 I. SCREENING 25 A. Legal Standard 26 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which…