Delgadillo

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 SAMUEL DELGADILLO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00642-KES-SKO

10 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

11 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL

12 FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, (Doc. 4) 13 Defendant. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 14 _____________________________________/

15 16 Plaintiff Samuel Delgadillo is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. (Docs. 17 1, 3.) Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 29, 2025. 18 On June 2, 2025, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state 19 any cognizable claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty 20 days or to notify the Court that he wishes to stand on his complaint. (Doc. 4.) The screening order 21 was served on Plaintiff by mail on June 2, 2025. (See Docket.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an 22 amended complaint, notified the Court of his intention to stand on his complaint, or requested an 23 extension of time within which to do so. 24 The Local Rules of the…