Kaur

(PC) Klinefelter v. Kaur

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 20202:20-cv-01429California2,029 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY SCOTT KLINEFELTER, No. 2:20-cv-1429-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GURMEET KAUR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.1 ECF Nos. 2, 4, 5. 19 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 21 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 22 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 24 II. Screening Requirement and Standards 25 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 27 1 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 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.