Legal Opinion

(PS) Toplean v. Kirby

District Court, E.D. California

Decided April 24, 2023No. 2:23-cv-00510Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETE TOPLEAN, No. 2:23-cv-00510 DJC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WILLIAM W. KIRBY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned 18 by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 20 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be…

2Cases cited15 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

10 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