(PS) Creel v. Sacramento County Sheriff Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHAD MICHAEL CREEL, No. 2:24-cv-01533-KJM-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, and accordingly this matter was referred to the undersigned by operation of Local Rule 302(c)(21). The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 5. Granting IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry, however, as the Court is required by Section 1915(e)(2) to screen the complaint and must dismiss an action if it is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court has previously screened the original and first amended complaints. ECF Nos. 5 & 7. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”). The Court concludes that, for screening purposes only, the SAC…