(PS) Trotter v. Sacramento Housing Program

Opinion

CUPID MONIQUE TROTTER, No. 2:22–cv–1552–KJM–KJN PS Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, requested 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). The undersigned granted plaintiff’s IFP application, (screened her complaint as directed by Section 1915), found her complaint failed to state a claim and was otherwise frivolous, and granted plaintiff 28 days to amend so she could attempt to state additional facts that might form the basis of a claim. (ECF No. 3.) In this order, the undersigned cautioned that a failure to file an amended complaint by the required deadline may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The deadline has passed without an amended pleading from plaintiff. /// 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. ] Based on the court’s findings in its “Order Granting IFP Request and Granting Leave to Amend” (ECF No. 3) regarding her claims, as well as the fact that plaintiff has failed to amend her complaint as instructed by the court, the undersigned RECOMMENDS: 1. Leave to amend be WITHDRAWN; 2. Plaintiffs claims stated in the complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: November 14, 2022 Aectl Aharon “rote 1552 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE