Allums v. Department of Justice

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DENNIS BRUCE ALLUMS, Case No. 19-cv-04906-YGR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 9 v. IN PART MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, FOR SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANTS, AND FOR 10 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET. AL., REFUND OF THE FILING FEE 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 4 13 On October 17, 2019, pro se plaintiff Dennis Bruce Allums filed a Motion requesting (1) that the Court grant a continuance of all proceedings for 60 days in light of his inability to serve defendants, (2) that the Court serve the defendants, and (3) that the Court issue an immediate refund of the $400 filing fee. (Dkt. 4 at 1 (“Motion”).)

17 With respect to the first issue, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m), plaintiff has ninety days from the date of the filing of the complaint in which to serve the defendants. Here, plaintiff filed his complaint on August 15, 2019, and his deadline in which to serve defendants expires November 13, 2019. The Court GRANTS IN PART this request and extends the time to serve to December 13, 2019.

22 With respect to the second and third issues, there is no legal authority upon which the Court can grant the requests. If a plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court has the authority to order the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint.

25 However, the Court must also conduct an initial review of the complaint to determine whether it states a cognizable claim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. Should he wish to do so, he must so demonstrate that he || meets the qualifications to proceed in forma pauperis, at which point the Court will perform an initial review of the complaint. See Choudhuri v. Specialized Loan Servs., Inc., 19-cv-00028 PJH, 2019 WL 109448, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2019) (“A plaintiff seeking to proceed in forma pauperis ‘must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” (quoting Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015)). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (court || may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees).

9 Therefore, the second and third requests are DENIED.

10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.

11 This Order terminates the motion at Docket 4.

12 IT Is SO ORDERED.

|] Dated: October 28, 2019 Lapent Hg tefftiecs,— YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS = 16 United States District Judge