Residents

(PS) Littleton v. Residents

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 15, 20242:23-cv-00735California1,110 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 MICHAEL LITTLETON, Case No. 2:23-cv-00735-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION

14 RESIDENTS, et al., TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 1 & 2 16 AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

17 18 Plaintiff has filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against an unidentified superior 19 court, an unidentified district attorney’s office, and Gary Timmons, together with an application 20 to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint, however, fails to state a claim, and I will 21 recommend that it be dismissed with leave to amend. I will grant plaintiff’s application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 24 Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is…

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.