Hickman

(PC) Roberson v. Hickman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 3, 20242:23-cv-01423California2,459 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLARENCE LONNELL ROBERSON, No. 2:23-cv-01423 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. HICKMAN, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Clarence Lonnell Roberson proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) The complaint fails to state a claim, but plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. I. In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The motion is granted. II. Screening Requirement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis proceeding, and mut order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a…

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.