(PS) Koto v. Positive Investments Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ULA KOTO, Case No. 2:24-cv-3618-DAD-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER POSITIVE INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, brings this action against the current and former owners and managers of her apartment complex, alleging antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts. Her complaint, however, fails to state a claim. I will give plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before recommending dismissal. I will also grant her application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). Screening and Pleading Requirements A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a…