Anderson

Anderson v. Del Toro

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNovember 12, 20243:23-cv-01615California2,625 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

26 Plaintiff filed her initial complaint in this matter on September 1, 2023. ECF No. 1. 27 Concurrently with her initial complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel and a 28 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 2, 3. On September 13, 2023, this Court denied those motions and dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was given until September 28, 2023, to file an amended complaint and resubmit a motion for IFP or pay the filing fee. Id. at 6. On September 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions addressing her IFP request and other related matters, but did not file an amended complaint. See ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7. The Court construed Plaintiff’s filings as a renewed motion for appointment of counsel, a motion for rescreening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a motion to admit evidence, and a motion to amend IFP. ECF No. 8. Because Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or submit any additional arguments or facts, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions. Id. at 2-3. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.