(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS and No. 2:22-cv-01699 DJC AC PS

DAVID TYRONE SAMUEL,

12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 14

SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND

15 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se, and the matter was accordingly referred to 19 the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). The operative complaint is the Third Amended 20 Complaint (ECF No. 11), filed November 15, 2022. See ECF No. 36. Portions of this complaint 21 have been dismissed, while others remain. Id. The undersigned has identified two remaining 22 problems with the status of some of the parties in this case. 23 A. The Minor Children Must be Removed as Plaintiffs 24 The operative complaint identifies four plaintiffs: David Tyrone Samuel, Sydney Brooke 25 Roberts, and two minor children: “AIMS” and “DAYS.” ECF No. 36 at 9. Although the initial 26 screening order in this case informed the adult plaintiffs that as pro se plaintiffs, they can 27 …