Guillen

Guillen v. Schleicher

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 20251:23-cv-01722California1,252 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 GABRIEL MATTHEW GUILLEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-01722-KES-SAB 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF v. ACTION 14 TYLER SCHLEICHER, et al., (ECF No. 24) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following multiple screening orders, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against on November 15, 2024. (ECF No. 9.) On December 9, 2024, the Court issued an order authorizing service of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and requiring Plaintiff to fill out and return the USM-285 form and summonses for Defendants Tyler Schliecher, Edgar Galdamez, and Jaime Orozco within thirty days. (ECF No. 23.) More than thirty days passed, and Plaintiff did not comply with or otherwise respond to the December 9, 2024 order. The Court issued an order to show cause directing Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this matter should not be dismissed for…

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.