(PS) Van den Heuvel v. El Dorado County Transit

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HUEVEL, No. 2:22–cv–1734–DAD–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE (AND

REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE) BY

13 v. THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL 14 EL DORADO COUNTY TRANSIT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, previously requested leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the 19 commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable 20 to pay such fees). The court granted plaintiff’s IFP request, screened the complaint under Section 21 1915(e), found a failure to state a viable claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but 22 found that given plaintiff’s pro se status, it was possible plaintiff could state more facts giving rise 23 to a plausible claim. (ECF No. 3.) 24 Plaintiff submitted a “notice of proof of injuries,” which appears to be a response to the 25 court’s order. …