Mauck

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY LEE JACKS, Case No. 2:25-cv-2651-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. MAUCK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this section 1983 action and appears to challenge the 19 validity of a state restitution fine levied against him. ECF No. 1 at 3-4, 7. The complaint as 20 articulated does not, for the reasons stated below, state a cognizable claim. I will dismiss the 21 complaint and give plaintiff leave to amend to address the deficiencies identified below. 22 Additionally, I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4. 23 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 25 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 26 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 27 28 1 claim upon which…