Hopper
(PS) Walton v. Hopper
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GREGORY WAYNE WALTON II and No. 2:22-cv-00453 JAM AC PS
ELIJAH WALTON III,
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER and v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AMANDA HOPPER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has commenced this action pro se. The matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. 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 (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. I. Screening Requirement 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). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in…