Edwards

Edwards v. Department of Human Services

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 20, 20221:21-cv-01726California857 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

19 Plaintiff DeeJeana Edwards (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 action. On December 14, 2021, Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston1 entered an order 21 dismissing the complaint and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 22 (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or other response to the Court’s order. On May 23, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 7.) The order directed Plaintiff to file a response in writing within twenty-one days. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id.) The twenty-one-day period for Plaintiff to respond to the order to show cause has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed any response or 1 Judge Thurston was subsequently elevated to the position of United States District Judge. (See ECF No. 4.) otherwise indicated an intention to prosecute this case. Accordingly, for the reasons described below, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to…

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.