(PS) Halousek v. CA Public Employees' Retirement System

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 18, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00839·Unknown

Opinion

SHEILA HALOUSEK, No. 2:23–cv–839–KJM–KJN PS Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST; ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE (AND v. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE) BY THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., (ECF No. 2) Defendants. Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable to pay such fees). Plaintiff’s affidavit makes the required financial showing, and so plaintiff’s request is granted. However, the determination that a plaintiff may proceed without payment of fees does not complete the inquiry. Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Further, the federal court has an independent duty to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 1 Actions where a party proceeds without counsel are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint states a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to survive this initial screening inquiry as against defendant CalPERS.2 Accordingly, the court orders service of process on CalPERS by the U.S. Marshal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, plaintiff must assist in providing the necessary information and materials for the Marshal to effect service (see paragraphs 5 and 6 below for plaintiff’s required next steps). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 2. Service of the complaint is appropriate for the following named defendants: (i) California Public Employees’ Retirement System; 3. The Clerk of Court shall issue forthwith all process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without prepayment of costs. The Clerk shall send to plaintiff: (i) one copy of this order; (ii) one copy of the court’s forthcoming order setting status conference; (iii) a copy of the Magistrate Judge Consent/Decline form for each named defendant; and (iv) a summons and a USM-285 form (with related documents) for each named defendant; 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal; /// ///

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

(PS) Halousek v. CA Public Employees' Retirement System, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

(PS) Halousek v. CA Public Employees' Retirement System ((PS) Halousek v. CA Public Employees' Retirement System) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related