United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (Doc. No. 2) SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 1)
Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge.
Gabriel Martinez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
se, initiated this civil action against Arlan Harrell on July
8, 2019. (Doc. No. 1) Concurrent with his complaint,
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. No. 2.)
Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915(a). Plaintiff
has made the showing required by section 1915(a), and
accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro
se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject
to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .
. .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
alleges as follows:
‘i', a “man” claim;
• Arlan did me wrong;
• Arlan is derelict of his duties;
• Arlan is a public servant; i'm the public; he
refused to perform his service; he subscribed to; that he
swore to; as he agreed ...