Whitfield

Whitfield v. Saleh

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 11, 20251:22-cv-00141California6,833 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 STEVEN WHITFIELD, Case No. 1:22-cv-00141-KES-CDB

9 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

10 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE (1) TO STATE

A CLAIM AND (2) TO PROSECUTE AND

11 KHALIB SALEH, et al., TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND LOCAL

RULES

12 Defendants. (Doc. 43) 13 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 14 15 Plaintiff Steven Whitfield (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 16 this action with the filing of a complaint on February 2, 2022. (Docs. 1, 4). On February 24, 17 2023, the Court directed the United States Marshal to serve service documents upon individual 18 Defendants Kimberly Long and Darrell Long (“individual Defendants”) and Defendant Khalib 19 Saleh, owner of CaliMex Supermarket (“Defendant” or “Saleh”). (Doc. 16). Summons returned 20 executed were filed on May 3, 2023, with all responses to the complaint due on May 16, 2023. 21 (Doc. 18). Individual Defendants filed their unopposed motion to dismiss on…

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.