(PC)Person

(PC)Person v. Peery

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 20212:20-cv-00622California2,864 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WALTER PERSON, No. 2:20-cv-0622 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SUZANNE PERRY, et al., Defendants.1 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 5). This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted. In addition, because plaintiff has raised cognizable claims in the complaint, the court shall order that it be served on defendants. //// ////

A review of plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the surname “Perry” should be “Peery.” (See ECF No. 1 at 1, 3). The Clerk of Court will be directed to make this change in the case caption of the court’s docket. I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Plaintiff has submitted 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.