1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRENCE WHITE, Case No.: 1:24-cv-01389-KES-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT 13 v. WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND (Doc. 2) 15 REHABILITATION, et al.,

16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Terrence White is former state prisoner and current parolee proceeding pro se in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to

. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on November 13, 2024. (Doc. 1.) 22 Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. 23 (Doc. 2.) 24 On November 15, 2024, the Court issued its Order Directing Plaintiff to Clarify and 25 Complete His Responses to Questions 2 and 3(f) in the Application to Proceed in District Court 26 Without Prepaying Fees and Costs. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff was to respond within 14 days. (Id. at 3.) 27 Plaintiff failed to respond, and on December 10, 2024, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to 1 prosecute. (Doc. 6.) Any objections were to be filed within 14 days. (Id. at 4.) 2 On December 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s 3 Findings and Recommendations; Motion for Extension of Time (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b); 72(a)).” 4 (Doc. 7.) 5 On January 3, 2025, the Court vacated its Findings and Recommendations and granted 6 Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to the Court’s order seeking clarification. (See Doc. 8.) 7 On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed1 a document titled “Declaration of Mwalimu 8 Shakur.”2 (Doc. 9.) 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff was previously ordered to clarify his responses to Questions 2 and 3(f) on his 11 application to proceed without prepayment of fees. (Doc. 4.) Regarding Question 2, Plaintiff 12 clarifies that at the time of his application his take-home pay was $800 every two weeks; those 13 monies were grant funded and not taxed. (Doc. 9 at 2, ¶¶ 3-5.) Regarding Question 3(f), Plaintiff 14 explains he received $5,000 from a GoFundMe account, and all funds were donated to “the Skid 15 Row Housing Project, the Downtown Women’s Center, Los Angeles Community Action 16 Network and Urban Alchemy.” (Id., ¶ 6-7.) Plaintiff did not retain any funds from the GoFundMe 17 account, and it is now closed. (Id., ¶¶ 8-9.) 18 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s clarifications. Considering this additional information and 19 the information previously provided on the application, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s application 20 to proceed without prepayment of fees. 21

22 1 Plaintiff is advised the prison mailbox rule does not apply to this action because he is no longer in custody. See Gelazela v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-01499-JLT-EPG (PC),

, at *8, n.2 23 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2024) (finding the mailbox rule does not apply because plaintiff was released from 24 custody when he filed his complaint). Moving forward, Plaintiff shall ensure his filings are received by the Court by the deadline imposed. See Estrada v. North Kern State Prison, No. 1:18-cv-00667-DAD-SAB 25 (PC),

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2020) (“the Court reminds Plaintiff that, now that he has been released from custody, the prison mailbox rule no longer applies to his filings. … In the future, 26 Plaintiff should ensure that any motions for extension of time, or other responses to Court deadlines, are mailed to the Court so they will be received by the applicable deadline”). 27 2 Plaintiff Terrence White is also known as Mwalimu Shakur. (See Doc. 1.) 1 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 3 1. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 4 (Doc. 2) is GRANTED; and 5 2. The Court is required to screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to

1915(e)(2).3 Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened and will be screened in 7 due course as the Court continues to screen the numerous pro se prisoner complaints 8 on its docket. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: January 22, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 3 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all in 27 forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (a court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity).