Carey

Carey v. Torres

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 20, 20244:24-cv-07354California4,104 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

15 On December 3, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff Cecilia Carey’s application to proceed in 16 forma pauperis and screened the complaint, finding it deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF 17 No. 5. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 7. For the reasons stated below, 18 the Court finds the amended complaint is still deficient. No later than January 17, 2025, Plaintiff 19 must file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in this screening order. If 20 Plaintiff fails to cure these deficiencies, the case will likely be reassigned to a district judge with a 21 recommendation for dismissal.

II. BACKGROUND

23 A. Initial Complaint 24 Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on October 22, 2024, alleging claims under the 25 Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses against Defendant Mauricio 26 Torres and Does 1-50. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleged Torres purchased 3414 64th Avenue 27 Place in Oakland, where she resides, in July 2023. Compl. at 1, 3. According to Plaintiff, the building’s tenants did not receive notice of any new lease terms or of a change in ownership. Id. at…

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.