Unknown

(PC) Davis v. Unknown

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 13, 20232:23-cv-02358California1,892 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL DAVIS, No. 2:23-cv-2358 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER UNKNOWN, Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a civil detainee, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Screening Standard A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490…

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.