(PC)Dingle

(PC)Dingle v. Tesluk

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 5, 20202:20-cv-01878California3,120 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 DAVID DINGLE, No. 2:20-cv-1878 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 Dr. GREGORY C. TESLUK, et al.. ORDER 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 17 1983. Before the court are plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and plaintiff’s 18 complaint for screening. For the reasons set forth below, this court grants plaintiff’s motion to 19 proceed in forma pauperis and finds plaintiff has stated no cognizable claims for relief. Plaintiff 20 will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint 21 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 24 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 25 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 26 …

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.