Stricklin

BACKGROUND

26 Like her original complaint, plaintiff’s FAC is difficult to follow, at best. Plaintiff appears 27 alleging: “[t]he Federal Tort custodians took custody of plaintiff’s request 2013 December, but with no effort to finalize anything. With submission of 1 1/2 page application the Federal SF-95 received no status check, feedback, unresponsive.” Dkt. No. 29 at 3. While plaintiff’s FAC includes allegations regarding a 2013 claim, plaintiff has also referenced a 2017 administrative claim. Compare Dkt. No. 29 at 4-5 (FAC) with Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2-3 (Original Complaint) (evidencing a 2017 administrative claim). Plaintiff’s FAC alleges four claims, namely violations of: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or possibly Title VII); (3) the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522a; and (4) California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code ¶¶ 1750 et seq. Dkt. No. 29 at 6-10 (FAC). 13 LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.…