(PS) Trotter v. Sacramento Housing Program
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 CUPID MONIQUE TROTTER, No. 2:22–cv–1552–KJM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 13 v. (ECF No. 2.) 14 SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 (ECF No. 2.) See
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(authorizing the commencement of 19 an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable to pay such fees). 20…
2Cases cited27 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
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.