Limpin
Limpin v. State of California
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MELCHOR LIMPIN, Case No.: 23-cv-037-JES-JLB
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IFP,
v. DISMISSING COMPLAINT &
DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
COUNSEL
Defendants. [ECF Nos. 2 and 3]
17 On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging four 18 causes of action against numerous defendants. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and a Motion to 20 Appoint Counsel. ECF Nos. 2, 3. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants 21 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, dismisses his complaint without leave to amend and 22 denies his motion to appoint counsel as moot.
I. Motion to Proceed IFP
24 The Court first addresses Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed IFP. ECF No. 2. Typically, 25 parties instituting a civil action in a United States District Court must pay a filing fee of 26 27 28 $402. But if granted the right to…