Icanotes-EHR
(PS) Pearson v. Icanotes-EHR
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 NICOLE PEARSON, No. 2:20-cv-1720 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ICANOTES-EHR, et al., 15 Defendants, 16 17 Plaintiff Nicole Pearson is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 18 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 19 before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about plaintiff’s medical records. 21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 22 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 23 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated 24 below, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 25 I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 26 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application…