McGee
McGee v. City of Palo Alto
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANTHONY MCGEE, Case No. 23-cv-02113-JD
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION AND
v. DISMISSAL
CITY OF PALO ALTO, et al., Defendants.
12 Pro se plaintiff Anthony McGee filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and a complaint alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment and the California Government Code against defendants the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto District Attorney’s Office, and the Palo Alto Police Department. Dkt. Nos. 1, 4. IFP requests are evaluated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The first question is whether the plaintiff’s financial status excuses payment of the court’s filing fees. The answer is yes. McGee states that he is unemployed with no sources of income, and pays monthly expenses of approximately $1,475. Dkt. No. 4. McGee meets the financial qualifications for IFP status. The next question is whether the complaint is sufficient to stand, and the answer is no. The…