Peery

(PC) Adcock v. Peery

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 5, 20202:20-cv-01235California2,795 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 JEROME ADCOCK, No. 2:20-cv-1235 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUZANNE PEERY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims he was exposed to hazardous materials in violation of his Eighth 19 Amendment rights. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 20 (ECF No. 2) and his complaint for screening (ECF No. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the 21 court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint with leave to 22 amend. 23 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 24 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 26 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 27 1914(a),…

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.