Haeussinger

Haeussinger v. Gore

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNovember 22, 20223:22-cv-00186California1,781 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SEAN D. HAEUSSINGER, II, Case No.: 22-CV-186-RSH-DDL

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

BILL GORE, et al.,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendants. [ECF No. 2] 16 17 18 This Order addresses Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion and, after screening the Complaint, DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice. I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP “Plaintiffs normally must pay $3501 to file a civil complaint in federal district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) allows the district court to waive the fee, 25

27 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants ordinarily must pay an 28 for most individuals unable to afford it, by granting IFP status.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.