(PS) Rigor v. Sacramento LGBT Community Center

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 20242:24-cv-00036California2,662 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOROYA MARIA RIGOR, No. 2:24–cv–36–DJC–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

13 v. DISMISS 14 SACRAMENTO LGBT COMMUNITY (ECF No. 2.) CENTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who proceeds without counsel in this action, requests leave to proceed in forma 18 pauperis (“IFP”).1 (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an 19 action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable to pay such fees). 20 Plaintiff’s affidavit makes the required financial showing, and so plaintiff’s request is granted. 21 However, the determination that a plaintiff may proceed without payment of fees does not 22 complete the inquiry. Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 23 claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek 24 monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). …

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.