Jermain Din Washington, Jr. v. Honeycomb Programs Inc., Gregory Reid, and Itai Benzaken

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERMAIN DIN WASHINGTON, Jr., No. 2:25-cv-2992 DC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HONEYCOMB PROGRAMS INC., GREGORY REID, and ITAI BENZAKEN, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The case was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned for pretrial purposes by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave 19 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will be granted. 21 Upon screening the complaint, however, the court finds that federal jurisdiction is lacking 22 because plaintiff asserts only a state law claim. Accordingly, the complaint will not be served. 23 Because the facts alleged in the complaint suggest the possible existence of analogous federal 24 claims, however, plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint that 25 properly invokes federal question jurisdiction. 26 I.…