Harris

(PC) Taylor v. Harris

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 30, 20251:25-cv-00779California1,084 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIRELLY TAYLOR, No. 1:25-cv-00779-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE

13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 F. HARRIS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

15 Defendants. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE

DENIED

16 (ECF No. 2) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on June 27, 2025, along with a motion to proceed in 20 forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 21 I. 22 DISCUSSION 23 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) was enacted “to curb frivolous 24 prisoner complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 25 2011). Pursuant to the PLRA, the in forma pauperis statue was amended to include section 26 1915(g), a non-merits related screening device which…

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.