Thomas v. Central Research

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA GARY E. THOMAS, Plaintiff, 5 2:20-cv-01777-RFB-VCF Vs. CENTRAL RESEARCH, et al., ORDER Defendants. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 1); COMPLAINT (ECF 9 No. 1-1) 10 Pro se plaintiff Gary E. Thomas filed a complaint (ECF No. 1-1), but he did not pay the filing fee until a few days later. Since the plaintiff did not pay his filing fee concurrently, the Clerk did not file his complaint. Plaintiff can proceed with his case pro se, without prior screening, since he is not a prisoner, 'S is not proceeding in forma pauperis, and he paid the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); See M4 also Salat v. County of Sacramento, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89314, 2 citing to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 'S ll and Bardes v. Magera, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49289, 2008 WL 2627134 10 (D.S.C. 2008) (finding that © |l it is error to screen a non-prisoner pro se plaintiff's complaint when the plaintiff pays the filing M7 fee)(emphasis added).

18 Accordingly, I ORDER that the Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

20 DATED this 24th day of October 2023. .

9 CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE