Legal Opinion

(PS) Charles v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management

District Court, E.D. California

Decided December 30, 2019No. 2:19-cv-02555Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CASSANDRA B. CHARLES, No. 2:19-cv-02555 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 22 I.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API