Conrad

(PC) Howell v. Conrad

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 14, 20202:19-cv-02551California3,789 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KAREEM J. HOWELL, No. 2:19-cv-2551 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CONRAD, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that officers refused to give him his property in retaliation for filing staff complaints and civil suits. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and his complaint for screening (ECF No. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant plaintiff the opportunity to proceed with the complaint as screened or to file an amended complaint. IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28…

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.