(PS) Creel v. Sacramento County Sheriff Department

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAD MICHAEL CREEL, No. 2:24-cv-01533-KJM-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, and accordingly this matter was referred to the 19 undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in 20 forma pauperis (“IFP”) which was granted. ECF No. 5. On November 5, 2024, the Court issued 21 an Order screening the original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The Order advised 22 Plaintiff of the deficiencies with the complaint, and allowed him 30 days to file an amended 23 complaint. On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 24 6. The Court now screens the FAC, and for the reasons provided below, the Court finds 25 Plaintiff’s FAC is legally deficient and will grant Plaintiff a second opportunity to file an 26 amended complaint. 27 //// 28 //// 1 I. …