(PS) Rodman v. Bright
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 ANNIE RODMAN, No. 2:25-cv-1178-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GINA BRIGHT and PATRICK HILDEBRAND, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 19 (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. ECF No. 2; see
28 U.S.C. § 20
1915(a)(1). 21 The motion to proceed IFP, ECF No. 2, will be granted. However, in screening Plaintiff’s 22…
2Cases cited11 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
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.