Legal Opinion

(PS) Haymore v. United States

District Court, E.D. California

Decided August 1, 2025No. 2:25-cv-01496Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAUREN MICHELLE HAYMORE and No. 2:25-cv-1496 DAD AC PS ANDREW GRANT HAYMORE, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER and v. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS KUCHUK YURIY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. The case was referred to the undersigned 19 for pretrial proceedings by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiffs filed a request for leave to proceed 20 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

and submitted the affidavit required by 21 that statute. ECF No. 2. See 28…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

19 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