(PS) Bibb v. Shasta County Health and Human Agency

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 24, 20252:22-cv-01894California3,433 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSICA BIBB, No. 2:22-cv-01894-DC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN AGENCY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 19 Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 10. 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who, as here, have 21 been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under this 22 screening provision, the Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B). 25 Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this Court must dismiss an 26 action if the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to…

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.