Shaun Page v. County of Sacramento, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUN PAGE, No. 2:25-cv-1706 DJC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se, and pretrial matters are accordingly referred to 18 the undersigned by E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed 19 in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and that motion was previously granted. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s initial 20 complaint was rejected with leave to amend pursuant to the screening process associated with IFP 21 status. Id. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) which is now before the court 22 for screening. 23 I. Screening 24 A. Standards 25 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is…