McMillan

(PS) Van den Heuvel v. McMillan

Bad Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 21, 20232:22-cv-02292California1,765 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HUEVEL, No. 2:22-cv-2292-DAD-CKD PS Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST v. KATHY MCMILLAN, Defendant. 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). Plaintiff’s affidavit makes the required financial showing, and so plaintiff’s request is granted. However, the determination that a plaintiff may proceed without payment of fees does not complete the inquiry. 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 federal court has an independent duty to ensure it has subject matter…

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.