Upshaw

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL M. WARD, No. 2:24-cv-00978 TLN AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 REDDING POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The case was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned magistrate judge by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. Further, for the 22 reasons stated below, plaintiff be given the opportunity either to proceed on the cognizable claims 23 identified in his complaint or to file an amended complaint. 24 I. SCREENING 25 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such…