Bright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANNIE RODMAN, No. 2:25-cv-1178-DAD-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER GINA BRIGHT and PATRICK

HILDEBRAND,

15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the undersigned. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. ECF No. 2; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP, ECF No. 2, will be granted. However, in screening Plaintiff’s Complaint, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court concludes that the Complaint fails to state a claim. As explained below, Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend her claims to plead sufficient facts as to the underlying events and exhaustion of administrative remedies. I. LEGAL STANDARD A court may authorize a person to proceed in an action without prepayment of fees if that person “submits an affidavit…