Legal Opinion
(PC) Van Huisen v. Warner Brothers
District Court, E.D. California
Decided January 16, 2024No. 2:24-cv-00014Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, No. 2:24-cv-0014 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARNER BROTHERS, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil action and seeks leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and appointment of counsel. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Plaintiff has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. “A district court 21 may deny leave to proceed in forma…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.