(PS) Nee v. California State

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 24, 20252:24-cv-03185California1,532 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 NII NEE, No. 2:24-CV-3185-DC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA STATE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who, as here, have 20 been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under this 21 screening provision, the Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B). 24 Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this Court must dismiss an 25 action if the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), 26 the Court will also…

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.