Grimes

I. INTRODUCTION

22 Presently before the Court is the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) of 23 Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, an individual (“Plaintiff”). ECF No. 2 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff, 24 proceeding pro se,1 alleges that Defendants A1-Auto Care, Inc., a California corporation

26 1 In reviewing the instant motion, the Court is mindful that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed … and a pro se [pleading], however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 28 (“A1-Auto”); S & R Towing, Inc., a California corporation (“S & R”); Carlsbad Auto Service, Inc., a California corporation (“CAS”); and Wayne Milack (collectively, “Defendants”)2 attempted to commit manslaughter by covertly replacing his vehicle transmission while it was in a tow yard. See generally ECF No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). Having considered carefully Plaintiff’s Complaint, IFP Motion, and the applicable law, the Court (1) DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP as moot and (2) DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice. II. BACKGROUND A. …