Gellman

Mikel Lee Plett v. Gelman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 12, 20252:25-cv-00332California1,596 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MIKEL LEE PLETT, No. 2:25-cv-00332-DAD-EFB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 GELMAN, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed 19 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a motion to amend the complaint, and a motion 20 for referral to the court’s alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) program. ECF Nos. 2, 9, 11, 12. 21 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.