Legal Opinion

(PC)Person v. Peery

District Court, E.D. California

Decided January 5, 2021No. 2:20-cv-00622Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER PERSON, No. 2:20-cv-0622 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUZANNE PERRY, et al., 15 Defendants.1 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

and 18 has requested authority pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 19 2, 5). This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 20

636(b)(1)(B). 21 For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall be 22…

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. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

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