(PS) Serris v. Solano County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BILL JOSEPH SERRIS, No. 2:24-cv-02251-DAD-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER SOLANO COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the 17 undersigned by operation of Local Rule 302(c)(21). The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave 18 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Granting IFP status does not 19 end the court’s inquiry, however, as the Court is required by Section 1915(e)(2) to screen the 20 complaint and must dismiss an action if it is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon 21 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 22 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court previously issued screening orders on Plaintiff’s 23 original and first amended complaints. ECF Nos. 3 & 5. Upon review of the second amended 24 complaint (“SAC”), the Court concludes that, for screening purposes only, Plaintiff’s claims are…