(PS) Whitaker v. Solano Supreme Court
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD C. WHITAKER, No. 2:25-cv-1044-TLN-CKD PS Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
14 SOLANO SUPERIOR COURT, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff requests to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 so the request will be granted. I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 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 a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. 27 …