Yap
(PS) Conerly v. Yap
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARINA CONERLEY, et al., No. 2:21-cv-1132-TLN-CKD PS Plaintiffs, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JULIE G. YAP, ET AL., (ECF No. 3)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
Defendants.
LEAVE TO AMEND
16 17 Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action, which is referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. In addition, plaintiff has filed an ex parte application for an emergency order granting her sole legal and physical custody of her minor daughter. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff requests to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The request will be granted. I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which…