Epperson

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHRIS EPPERSON, CASE NO. 1:20-cv-01500-NONE-SKO

10 Plaintiff, FIRST SCREENING ORDER

11 (Doc. 1) v.

12 21-DAY DEADLINE

DANIEL CEDERBORG,

13 Defendant. 14

15 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 A. Background 20 On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff Chris Epperson, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint. (Doc. 21 1 (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted 22 on October 27, 2020. (Docs. 2 & 3.) 23 Plaintiff’s complaint is now before the Court for screening. As discussed below, Plaintiff’s 24 allegations are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction and to plead a cognizable claim. 25 Plaintiff is granted leave to file a first amended complaint and is provided the pleading requirements 26 and legal standards under which his claims will be analyzed. 27 B. Screening Requirement and Standard 28 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in…