Spiro

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 NATASHA J. RYAN, No. 2:25-cv-01245-DAD-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 MILDRED SPIRO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave 19 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 20 ECF No. 3. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC). The Court finds 21 Plaintiff’s FAC to be legally deficient and will allow Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend. 22 I. SCREENING 23 A. Legal Standard 24 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In 27 …