(PS) Charles v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
District Court, E.D. California
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 AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 US 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. Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff was previously granted leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), though her initial complaint was rejected pursuant to the 21 screening process required by the IFP…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.