Lynn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MARY J. CRAGO, No. 2:19-cv-02509 MCE AC (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER INTERNAL AFFAIRS, SACRAMENTO

SHERIFF,

14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff was previously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), though her initial complaint was rejected pursuant to the screening process required by the IFP statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has submitted a First Amended Compliant, now before the court for screening. ECF No. 5. I. SCREENING The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable…