Debbs

Debbs v. Valley Convalscent Hospital

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 19, 20221:22-cv-00248California1,424 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

18 Plaintiff Eural Debbs, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 action. (ECF Nos. 1-2, 5). On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 20 (“FAC”). (ECF No. 4). On March 21, 2022, the Court screened Plaintiff’s FAC and found that it 21 failed to state any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 6). The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the Court in writing if he wanted to stand on his First Amended Complaint. Id. at 9. More than thirty days elapsed, and Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. On May 12, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failing to comply with the Court’s orders. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff was directed to file either a written response, a Second Amended Complaint or a notice if he wanted to stand on his FAC. Id. at 2. On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed a response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff argued his FAC did state a claim upon which relief should be granted…

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.