Lozano

(PC) Chinsami v. Lozano

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 6, 20202:20-cv-01792California1,689 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 SHU CHINSAMI, No. 2:20-cv-1792 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 JARED LOZANO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. In a complaint filed September 4, 2020, 18 plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by 19 Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the court is plaintiff’s complaint for 20 screening and plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, 21 this court finds plaintiff fails to meet the standards to proceed in forma pauperis and recommends 22 this action be dismissed if plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. 23 IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUTE 24 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) permits a federal court to authorize 25 the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who 26 submits an affidavit…

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.