(PS) Mehl v. Countrywide Bank, NA
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 GAVIN MEHL,, No. 2:19-CV-01005-TLN-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTRYWIDE BANK, NA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is pro se and proceeding in this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 18 This action was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 20 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 21 or seeks monetary relief…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt CuppCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Bartlett v. StricklandSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.