(PS) Howard v. City of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 3, 20192:19-cv-02136California1,070 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STANLEY HOWARD, No. 2:19-cv-02136 TLN AC (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant. 16 On October 22, 2019, plaintiff filed this action in pro se and paid the filing fee. ECF No. 1. The case was accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On November 13, 2019, the undersigned notified plaintiff that upon review of the complaint it appeared that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s case. ECF No. 9. The court ordered plaintiff to show cause by November 27, 2019 why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. On November 15, 2019 plaintiff filed a document entitled “Knowledge and Notice.” ECF No. 10. The court construes this as a response to the order to show cause. On November 21, 2019, plaintiff filed a document entitled “claimant order to show cause for zero balance account because of…

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.