Spiro

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 NATASHA J. RYAN, No. 2:25-cv-01245-DAD-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER MILDRED SPIRO, et al., Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 3. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC). The Court finds Plaintiff’s FAC to be legally deficient and will allow Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend. I. SCREENING A. Legal Standard The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In 27 …