Dunn v. HUD Urban Development

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EMMA DUNN, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00815-KES-BAM 8 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 v. REGARDING PENDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATIONS HUD URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., (Docs. 2, 5, 8) 11 Defendants.

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 13 On July 16, 2024, Emma Dunn, Ariel Dunn, Richie Dunn, Aaliyah Dunn, and Ashanti Dunn (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant civil action. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff Emma Dunn also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) On July 22, 2024, the Court reviewed these filings, identified various deficiencies, and ordered as follows: (1) if Plaintiffs Ariel Dunn, Richie Dunn, Aaliyah Dunn, and Ashanti Dunn wish to proceed in this action along with Plaintiff Emma Dunn, then they shall file an amended complaint that includes the signatures of each plaintiff proceeding pro se; (2) if Plaintiffs Ariel Dunn, Richie Dunn, Aaliyah Dunn, and Ashanti Dunn wish to proceed in this action, then they shall file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, or in the alternative pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action; and (3) Plaintiff Emma Dunn shall file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, or in the alternative, pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 3.)

24 On August 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, along with a joint application by Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 4, 5.) On October 4, 2024, the Court reviewed these filings, identified various issues, and ordered as follows: (1) if Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn wish to proceed together in this action, then they shall file an amended complaint that includes both of their signatures; and (2) Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn shall each complete and file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 or, in the alternative, pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 6.)

5 On October 10, 2024, the $405.00 filing fee for this action was paid. (See generally Docket.) On the same date, Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn filed what appears to be a second amended complaint, (Doc. 7), along with an application by Plaintiff Alana Dunn to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 8.)

9 In a multiple-plaintiff case, such as this one, only one filing fee needs to be paid. See Dupont v. Sterling Family Trust, No.2:23-cv-09785-SVW-AS, 2024 WL 589880, at * 1 (C.D.

11 Cal. Jan. 19, 2024) (noting only one filing fee needs to be paid in a multiple-plaintiff case); see also Warren v. Wasden, No. 1:23-CV-00116-DCN, 2023 WL 3886491, at *1 (D. Idaho June 8, 2023) (“When multiple plaintiffs file a complaint only one filing fee need be paid.”); Vega v. Weeks Wholesale Rose Grower, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00225-OWW-TAG, 2007 WL 587005, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2007) (denying remaining applications to proceed in forma pauperis where other plaintiffs financially able to pay the fee “[b]ecause there is only one filing fee to be paid in [a] multi-plaintiff action”). Because the filing fee has been paid in this action, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the pending requests to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2, 5, 8) be DENIED.

20 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiffs may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be considered. Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: October 17, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE