1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HASSAUN HAYGOOD, No. 1:25-cv-01837-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS

14 DANNY CHAVEZ, (ECF No. 2)

15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to

. 18 Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on December 12, 2025, along with a motion to 19 proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) In consideration of the information provided, the 20 Court finds Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of 21 fees. 22 “Notwithstanding any filing fee . . . the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court 23 determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which 24 relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 25 relief.”

(e)(2). “Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not 26 just those filed by prisoners.” Lopez v. Smith,

, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000); see also 27 Calhoun v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (“the provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are 28 1 not limited to prisoners,” and dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek 2 monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States,

, 1106 (9th Cir. 3 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a complaint that has been filed in forma 4 pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own initiative and to decide whether the action has 5 an arguable basis in law before permitting it to proceed.”).1 The Court shall exercise its discretion 6 complaint in this action to determine if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 7 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 8 such relief.”

(e)(2). 9 Therefore, notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that summonses issue or 10 service be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening 11 order. See Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB),

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the 13 IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal 14 to effect service.”); Rosiere v. United States, No. 217CV02468APGPAL,

, at *1 15 (D. Nev. Sept. 10, 2018) (“Pursuant to § 1915(e), federal courts may screen any IFP complaint— 16 without regard to prisoner status—before allowing the case to move forward, issuing summons, 17 and requiring an answer or responsive pleading.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18 217CV02468APGPAL,

(D. Nev. Feb. 19, 2019). Defendant is not required to 19 file an answer or other pleading in response to Plaintiff’s complaint until after the Court has 20 completed its sua sponte screening process to determine whether Plaintiff states any cognizable 21 claims. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 1 Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106, cited to the previous version of

(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

(d) (1995). 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED; and 3 2. No summons shall issue in this action until the Court issues its screening order 4 pursuant to

(e)(2). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Be 7 | Dated: _ December 15, 2025 ; STANLEY A. BOONE 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28