(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS and No. 2:22-cv-01699 TLN AC PS
DAVID SAMUEL,
11 Plaintiffs, ORDER v.
SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiffs Sydney Brooke Roberts and David Samuel are proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff Roberts previously filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ECF No. 2. Her motion was granted. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff Roberts’ initial complaint was rejected on screening, and she was granted leave to amend. ECF No. 3. Now before the court is an amended complaint signed by both Roberts and Samuel. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff Samuel has also filed an application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 4), along with the necessary affidavit. Samuel’s motion for IFP status is GRANTED. I. …