Richard D. Casity v. Amador County, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD D. CASITY, No. 2:25-cv-03065-DAD-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER AMADOR COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted a declaration averring that he is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding and containing information as to income, assets, and expenses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. However, for the reasons provided below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is legally deficient. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint. I. SCREENING A. Legal Standard The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a…