Smith v. Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CANDACE SMITH, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 11 v. (ECF No. 4).

KATHY DAVIS, Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Candace Smith, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on April 22, 2024, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). The Court denied Plaintiff’s application without prejudice and directed Plaintiff to submit the long-form application or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 3). On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a completed application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4).

20 \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ —_—— III ITI EIEIO III III IE GID (GUERIN | The Court finds Plaintiff has made the showing required by $1915. Accordingly, □□□□□□□□□□ □ application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is granted.!

4 || IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 . .

Dated: _ May 15, 2024 [Je hey —— 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 The Court notes that, because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to screening before the Court authorizes the Clerk of the Court to issue summons. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also || O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2008) (“After a prisoner applies for in forma pauperis status ar lodges a complaint with the district court, the district court screens the complaint and determines whether it || contains cognizable claims. If not, the district court must dismiss the complaint.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that “section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just || those filed by prisoners”); Preciado v. Salas, No. 1:13-cv-0390-LJO-BAM, 2014 WL 127710, at *1 (E.D. Cal Jan. 14, 2014) (“The Court is required to screen complaints brought by plaintiffs proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.”). Accordingly, the Court will screen Plaintiffs complaint in due course.