(PS) Coleman v. County of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JACQUELINE COLEMAN, 2:23-cv-2677-DC-CKD (PS) Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Jacqueline Coleman proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis1 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) is before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (ECF No. 16.) The court must screen every in forma pauperis proceeding and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes plaintiff’s pro se pleading. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). Liberally construed, the SAC fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and must be dismissed. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend as set 26 …