Perrielin Sessions v. Solano County Health and Social Services, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 20, 20252:25-cv-02936California498 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PERRIELIN SESSIONS, No. 2:25-cv-2936-DAD-CKD (PS) Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND

SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

18 Plaintiff Perrielin Sessions proceeds without counsel and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff initiated this action with a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Presently, the applicable court costs include a $350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative fee. The court may authorize the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees” by an individual who submits an affidavit evidencing an inability to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787…

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.