Farhat

(PC) Hearne v. Farhat

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 13, 20202:20-cv-00557California4,978 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JOHN HEARNE, No. 2:20-cv-0557 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER ALEX FARHAT, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims he was purposely transferred to a prison where he had documented enemies where he was attacked and injured. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 3), and his complaint for screening (ECF No. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and will give plaintiff the opportunity to proceed with the complaint as screened or to amend the 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…

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.