Spitters
Spitters v. Spitters, Sr.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THOMAS HEATON SPITTERS, Case No. 23-cv-06094-TSH
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
9 v.
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
10 LAURENCE L. SPITTERS, SR., et al., FORMA PAUPERIS AND SCREENING
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
11 Defendants. § 1915(E)
12
13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Thomas Heaton Spitters, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and application to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2. The Court initially denied Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 17 application with leave to amend because he did not provide his income, ECF No. 4, but he has 18 now filed a clarifying statement, ECF No. 5. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS 19 the application but finds the complaint deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). No later than January 20 16, 2024, Plaintiff must file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in this 21 screening order. If Plaintiff fails to cure these deficiencies, the case will be reassigned to a…