(PS) King v. Superior Court of CA, Placer County

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TED ARTHUR KING, No. 2:23-cv-2206 TLN DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, PLACER CO., et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Ted Arthur King is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 19 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 20 before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about “The Right to Jury Trial in 22 Civil Affairs.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4.) 23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 24 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 25 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated 26 below, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 27 //// 28 //// 1 I. …