Legal Opinion

Roberta Barnett v. Farhad Khojasteh, et al.

District Court, E.D. California

Decided March 17, 2026No. 2:25-cv-03590Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTA BARNETT, No. 2:25-cv-3590 TLN AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FARHAD KHOJASTEH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se, and the case was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. 21 On screening the…

2Cases cited18 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. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

13 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