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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD D. CASITY, No. 2:25-cv-03065-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMADOR COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted a declaration averring that he is unable to pay 20 the costs of this proceeding and containing information as to income, assets, and expenses. See 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. However, for the 22 reasons provided below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is legally deficient. Plaintiff will be 23 granted leave to file an amended complaint. 24 I. SCREENING 25 A. Legal Standard 26 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous 27 or malicious,” fails to state a…