(PC) Miller v. Mule Creek State Prison

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 20222:21-cv-01122California3,285 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ELIJAH LEE MILLER, No. 2:21-cv-1122 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and plaintiff’s complaint for screening (ECF No. 1). Additionally, plaintiff has filed what appear to be two motions for extension of time. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) For the reasons set forth below, this court grants plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and finds plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims for relief. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time will be denied as moot. //// //// //// //// IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 3 …

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.