Cherrish Castaneda v. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHERRISH CASTANEDA, No. 2:24-cv-0788-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

15 et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 19 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed 20 in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which was granted. ECF No. 6 at 13. The undersigned issued a 21 screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint was 22 legally deficient. Id. The District Judge subsequently dismissed with prejudice all claims against 23 Defendant Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”), as well as claims brought under 18 U.S.C. 24 §§ 241-242 as against all Defendants. ECF No. 7 at 2-3. 25 However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend claims brought under § 1983 and the 26 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as against Defendant Steve Gordon in his…