Situ

(PS) Frye v. Situ

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 20252:24-cv-02209California712 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 VANESSA FRYE, No. 2:24-cv-02209-DC-SCR Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS NICK SITU, Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Vanessa Frye is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 and 2. On October 16, 2024, the Court screened the complaint per the screening process required by the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and found the complaint legally deficient but granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. ECF No. 4. The Court found the complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, including that it did not sufficiently set forth the grounds for federal jurisdiction. ECF No. 4 at 3. The Court’s order allowed Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies and…

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.