Williams v. Vista

[8] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [9] EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01661-NONE-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 J. VISTA, ET AL., (ECF Nos. 5, 6) 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights 18 action on November 17, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and 19 instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . (ECF 20 No. 2.) Due to the lack of information provided in the initial application, on November 18, 2021, 21 the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 22 Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239. (ECF No. 3.) On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a 23 long form application. (ECF No. 4.) On November 29, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 24 provide a supplemental declaration in support of the application, and Plaintiff filed such 25 supplement on December 10, 2021. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) In consideration of the information 26 provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without 27 prepayment of fees. “Notwithstanding any filing fee . . . the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the 1 Court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 2 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). “Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 4 complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 5 2000); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners,” and dismissal required of in forma pauperis 7 proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 8 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a complaint that has 9 been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own initiative and to decide 10 whether the action has an arguable basis in law before permitting it to proceed.”).1 The Court 11 shall exercise its discretion complaint in this action to determine if it “(i) is frivolous or 12 malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief 13 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). 14 Therefore, notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that summonses issue or 15 service be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening 16 order. See Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 280026 , at *2 (S.D. Cal. 17 Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant 18 to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the 19 Marshal to effect service.”); Rosiere v. United States, No. 217CV02468APGPAL, 2018 WL 20 7357399, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 10, 2018) (“Pursuant to § 1915(e), federal courts may screen any 21 IFP complaint—without regard to prisoner status—before allowing the case to move forward, 22 issuing summons, and requiring an answer or responsive pleading.”), report and recommendation 23 adopted, No. 217CV02468APGPAL, 2019 WL 690351 (D. Nev. Feb. 19, 2019). Defendants are 24 not required to file an answer or other pleading in response to Plaintiff’s complaint until after the 25 Court has completed its sua sponte screening process to determine whether Plaintiff states any 26 cognizable claims. 27 1 Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106, cited to the previous version of 18 U.S.C. § 1915 (d), prior to amendment in 1996, which read in relevant part that the court “may dismiss the case . . . if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.” 18 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and 3 2. No summons shall issue in this action until the Court issues its screening order 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). [5] 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 7 | Dated: _ December 14, 2021 ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE