(PS) Murphy v. Farmers Insurance Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 29, 20202:20-cv-01456California2,178 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 SHANNON O. MURPHY ESQ. SR., dba No. 2:20-cv-1456 KJM DB PS

SHEETMETAL & ASSOCIATES,

12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Shannon O. Murphy Sr. is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 19 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Pending before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about defendant’s 22 alleged breach of contract and fraud in connection with a refusal to reimburse plaintiff for the cost 23 of a rental car. 24 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 25 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 26 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated 27 below, plaintiff’s complaint will be…

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.