(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS and No. 2:22-cv-01699 TLN AC PS

DAVID SAMUEL,

11 Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER v. 13

SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND

14 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs Sydney Brooke Roberts and David Samuel are proceeding in this action pro se. 18 The matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). The plaintiffs 19 are both proceeding with IFP status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the complaint is 20 subject to pre-service screening. ECF Nos. 3, 6. On October 26, 2022, the undersigned gave 21 plaintiffs a choice: their first amended complaint could be served on some causes of action 22 against some defendants, or plaintiffs could file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 6. 23 Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and a second amended complaint on 24 October 31, 2022. ECF Nos. 7, 8. The second amended complaint is now before the court for 25 screening. 26 I. SCREENING 27 …