(PC) Casity v. Amador County

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 12, 20252:24-cv-02449California1,276 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD CASITY, No. 2:24-cv-2449 CSK P Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

v. AMADOR COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this Court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. I. SCREENING STANDARDS A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.