Sanders v. Matthew et al

Filing 3

ORDER Granting 2 IFP signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/17/2015. (Martinez, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PHILLIP SANDERS, 11 15-cv-00395---GSA Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING IFP 13 v. 14 (ECF No. 2) 15 16 17 18 MATTHEW, et al. Defendants. Plaintiff Phillip Sanders (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on March 12, 2015 and an 19 20 application to proceed in forma pauperis on that same day. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). Plaintiff has made 21 the required showing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in 22 forma pauperis is GRANTED. 23 24 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court conducts an initial review of all pro se complaints for legal sufficiency. The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 26 27 28 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to 1 1 amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint may be cured by 2 amendment. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will screen his complaint in due course and issue 3 an order addressing the legal sufficiency of his claims. The Court’s screening order will be served 4 on Plaintiff by U.S. mail. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 17, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?