Martin
Felice Lazae Martin, et al. v. Michael Castillo, et al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 10 FELICE LAZAE MARTIN, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01123-KES-CDB
11 Plaintiffs, FIRST SCREENING ORDER DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND
12 v. (Doc. 1) 13 MICHAEL CASTILLO, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (1) FOR
Defendants. ELECTRONIC FILING PRIVILEGES, (2)
FOR MONETARY RELIEF, (3) TO
EXPEDITE, AND (4) FOR SANCTIONS
(Docs. 9, 13, 14, 16)
21-DAY DEADLINE
18 Plaintiffs Felice Lazae Martin and Hector Joseph Borges (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on September 4, 2025. (Doc. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, federal courts are required to screen IFP complaints and dismiss the case if the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)…