Alvarez

Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 5, 20251:23-cv-01162California1,921 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Background

22 Plaintiff initiated this action on August 4, 2023. (Doc. 1.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s 23 motion to proceed in forma pauperis on August 30, 2023. (Doc. 9.) On February 23, 2024, 24 Plaintiff filed an unsigned witness statement. (Doc. 10.) On December 17, 2024, the Court 25 screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and determined that the 26 complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 27 (Doc. 11.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty (30) days of service of the 28 Court’s order. (Id.) Plaintiff was expressly warned that if he failed to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order, then the Court would recommend dismissal of this action. (Id. at 6.) The deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order. The Court therefore will recommend dismissal of this action. II. Failure to State a Claim A. Screening Requirement and Standard The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis. 28…

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.