(PS) Ashanti v. Department of Consumer Affairs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ASKIA SANKOFA ASHANTI, No. 2:25-cv-00162-DAD-SCR Petitioner, v. ORDER DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned 18 pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. However, for the reasons 21 provided below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus is legally deficient and 22 will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The Court will also defer ruling on 23 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 4) as the motion is premature because the 24 complaint has not passed screening and no defendants have appeared.

I. SCREENING

26 A. Legal Standard 27 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is…