Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01468-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHALLA ALFARO BRITTANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ARCHULETTA FAMILY REUNION, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-01468 TLN GGH (PS) 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff filed her complaint in pro se on June 28, 2016 seeking damages from defendant 

for using her car club identification without permission and seeking damages, ECF No. 1, 

together with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [“IFP”]. ECF No. 2. On August 15, 2016 

this court issued an Order denying the IFP Motion without prejudice due to its incompleteness. 

The court also found the Complaint in its present form to be frivolous pursuant to the holding in 

O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990), insofar as it failed to meet the requirement 

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and explaining the steps that had to be taken to bring a 

complaint in conformity with the Rule. ECF No. 4. That Order directed that if plaintiff desired 

she could file a complete IFP application and amended complaint within 30 days of the Order and 

Case 2:16-cv-01468-TLN-GGH Document 5 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

that the failure to complete application and or an Amended Complaint that conformed to the 

instructions found in the Federal Rules would lead to a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. Id. 

 Plaintiff has filed neither an amended IFP Application nor an Amended Complaint. 

CONCLUSION 

 No action having been taken in response to the court’s Order, this court finds and 

recommends that this matter be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 

obey the court’s order. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 737(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days 

after service of this Order plaintiff may file written objections. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive her right to appeal the 

District Court’s Order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT the Clerk of the Court shall submit a copy of this Order to the 

District Judge assigned to this case and serve it on plaintiff. 

Dated: November 16, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-01468-TLN-GGH Document 5 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 2