Zuckerberg
(PS) Bledsoe v. Zuckerberg
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DONNELL BLEDSOE, No. 2:22–cv–0394–KJM–KJN PS Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS AND ORDER
v. (ECF Nos. 1, 2) MARK ZUCKERBERG; FACEBOOK,
Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable to pay such fees). Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Further, the court has an independent duty to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction in the case. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). /// /// 27 1 Actions where a party proceeds…