Carlsen

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SORAYA MARIA RIGOR, Case No. 2:23-cv-0774-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DALE CARLSEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action against defendants Dale Carlsen, Robert Nelsen, Frank Bisek, 18 and Jyoti Das, all employees of California State University, Sacramento. The complaint is too 19 vague to raise a cognizable claim against any defendant and is non-compliant with Rule 8 of the 20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I will therefore dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. I 21 will also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the 22 showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 25 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 26 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is…