Browns

Williams v. Browns

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 21, 20211:21-cv-00622California3,086 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Background

15 Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis, initiated this action on April 14, 2021. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed a first amended 17 complaint on April 16, 2021. (Doc. 3.) 18 On June 7, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and granted him 19 leave to amend within thirty (30) days of service of the Court’s order. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff was 20 expressly warned that if he failed to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s 21 order, the Court would recommend dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a 22 court order and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id.) 23 The deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint has passed and Plaintiff has not 24 complied with the Court’s order.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

26 A. Screening Requirement and Standard 27 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 28 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which…

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.