Nelnet
Rochanda Zigler, et. al. v. Nelnet, et. al.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROCHANDA ZIGLER, et. al., No. 2:25-cv-02996-DAD-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST 14 NELNET, et. al., AND DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO 15
AMEND
Defendants. 16
17 18 Plaintiff Rochanda Ziegler, trustee of the Murphybey Trust, proceeds pro se in this action 19 which is referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 20 Plaintiff has filed an application in support of her request to proceed in forma pauperis which 21 makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) The request will be granted. 22
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 24 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 25 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 27 (2000). In performing this…