(PS) Noeldner v. United States Government
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JONATHAN LYNN NOELDNER, and No. 2:19–cv–2166–TLN–KJN (PS)
ANGELA TEARLE NOELDNER
ORDER Plaintiffs, (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3) v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiffs, who are proceeding without counsel in this action, filed a complaint arising from the alleged loss of property from a 2016 fire. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs have requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is to review the complaint to determine if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See Id. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon further inspection, the undersigned notes that this action is…