Dillard

Washington v. Dillard

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 10, 20231:23-cv-00431California3,667 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

21 Plaintiff Perry Kenji Washington (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights 22 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 22, 2023, against Curtis Dillard and “Ebony” 23 (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) An order issued on June 30, 2023, providing Plaintiff 24 with thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 4.) In the June 30, 2023 order, 25 Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to file an amended complaint, it would be recommended that 26 this action be dismissed for the reasons stated in the order. (Id. at 10.) More than thirty days 27 have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the June 28 30, 2023 order. For the following reasons, the Court shall recommend the action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute/obey a Court order. II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a…

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.