Perrielin Sessions v. Solano County Health and Social Services, et. al.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJanuary 15, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-02936
StatusUnknown

This text of Perrielin Sessions v. Solano County Health and Social Services, et. al. (Perrielin Sessions v. Solano County Health and Social Services, et. al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Perrielin Sessions v. Solano County Health and Social Services, et. al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERRIELIN SESSIONS No. 2:25-cv-2936-DAD-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Perrielin Sessions proceeds without counsel and seeks to proceed in forma 18 pauperis (“IFP”). On December 16, 2025, the undersigned recommended plaintiff be denied leave 19 to proceed IFP and be required to pay the court costs by monthly installments to proceed with this 20 case. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has filed a further renewed motion to proceed IFP indicating plaintiff 21 became unemployed as of December 10, 2025, which the undersigned construes as additionally 22 containing objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 6.) Good cause 23 appearing, plaintiff’s further renewed request to proceed IFP will be granted and the undersigned 24 will vacate the pending findings and recommendations. The court will screen plaintiff’s complaint 25 in due course.1 26 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis proceeding, and 27 must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed on December 16, 2025 (ECF No. 5) are 3 | VACATED; 4 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed on December 11, 2025 (ECF 5 || Nos. 4) is DENIED without prejudice; and 6 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed on December 29, 2025 (ECF 7 || No. 6) is GRANTED; the court will screen plaintiff's complaint in due course. 8 || Dated: January 15, 2026 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce

10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 | 8.sess25ev2936.vac.ifpfir 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Perrielin Sessions v. Solano County Health and Social Services, et. al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrielin-sessions-v-solano-county-health-and-social-services-et-al-caed-2026.