Newsome

(PS) Rogers v. Newsome

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 18, 20222:21-cv-02180California1,863 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KIM EDWARD ROGERS, No. 2:21-cv-2180 KJM DB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER GAVIN NEWSOME, Governor of California, Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Kim Edward Rogers is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about the State of California’s Medicaid plan. The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. //// //// I. …

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.