(PS) Rigor v. Sacramento Regional Transit

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 SORAYA MARIA RIGOR, No. 2:25-cv-00243-TLN-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16

17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 19 complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 and 2. On May 16, 20 2025, this Court screened the complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found the 21 complaint was deficient in that it failed to state a claim and appeared to be time-barred and barred 22 by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483–87 (1994). The Court’s order provided Plaintiff 30 23 days to file an amended complaint that addresses the defects set forth in the screening order. ECF 24 No. 3 at 7. The order warned that failure to comply may result in a recommendation that the 25 action be dismissed. Id. More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended 26 complaint. 27 //// 28 ] Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, in 2 | writing, within 14 days, why the failure to file an amended complaint should not result in a 3 || recommendation that this case be dismissed based on failure to state a claim. Plaintiff may 4 || respond by filing an amended complaint that complies with the Court’s prior order. If Plaintiff 5 || fails to respond, the court will recommend dismissal of this case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Local 6 | Rule 110. 7 | SOORDERED. 8 | DATED: June 26, 2025 md 9 SEAN C. RIORDAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28