(PS)Rigor

(PS)Rigor v. Carlsen

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 20212:21-cv-01388California2,361 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SORAYA MARIA RIGOR, No. 2:21-cv-01388 KJM AC PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

DALE AND KATY CARLSEN CENTER

FOR INNOVATION AND

ENTREPRENEUERSHIP, et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. I. SCREENING A. Standards The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under the Federal Rules of Civil…

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.