Mullin

Mullin v. City of Mountain View, California

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 7, 20255:25-cv-02191California698 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 TYGHE JAMES MULLIN, Case No. 25-cv-02191-BLF

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED

v. IN FORMA PAUPERIS; SCREENING

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED CALIFORNIA, et al., COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 11 Defendants. 12 Plaintiff Tyghe James Mullin, proceeding pro se, filed the complaint in this case on March 3, 2025, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Compl., ECF 1; IFP Application, ECF 2. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi, who conditionally granted the application and ordered service of process by the U.S. Marshal. See Order, ECF 4. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on March 20, 2025. See FAC, ECF 7. Judge DeMarchi did not screen the complaint or the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The case was reassigned to the undersigned judge…

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.