(PS) Charles v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CASSANDRA B. CHARLES, No. 2:19-cv-02555 KJM AC PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
US OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff was previously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), though her initial complaint was rejected pursuant to the screening process required by the IFP statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); ECF No. 4. Plaintiff submitted a First Amended Compliant, which was also rejected with leave to amend. ECF Nos. 5, 8. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint after the deadline to do so, along with a motion for an extension of time. ECF No. 9 (motion) and 10 (Second Amended Complaint). The motion for an extension of time is GRANTED and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) has been reviewed. Finding that the SAC does not state…