O'Diah
O'Diah v. Benton
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8 9 10 AROR-ARK O’DIAH, No. C 19-01854 WHA 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER RE IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS ON
13 JUDGE WILLIAM DUANE BENTON, et al., APPEAL 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 Our court of appeals has referred this matter to the undersigned judge for the limited 17 purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for pro se plaintiff 18 Aror-Ark O’Diah (Dkt. No. 34). A prior order granted plaintiff’s IFP application and screened 19 his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), holding that the complaint failed to state a claim 20 for relief (Dkt. No. 10). Specifically, that order found that (id. at 3–4): 21 plaintiff thr[ew] a wide net, naming dozens of defendants, including 22 federal judges, the United States Department of State, the United States Postal Service, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Internal 23 Revenue Service, United Parcel Service, Hewlett-Packard, Chase Bank, Staples Store, Western Union, such disparate individuals as a driver who 24 allegedly hit plaintiff with…