1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 YAUSMENDA FREEMAN, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02373-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motion to Compel Ruling

5 v. [ECF No. 7]

6 CARELON INSIGHTS, INC.,

7 Defendant

8 Yausmenda Freeman has filed an ex parte motion to compel a ruling on her in forma 9 pauperis application, and she requests that the screening of her complaint be performed by the 10 presiding judge (me) or the Chief Judge of this district (also me). ECF No. 7. She bases this 11 motion on “extended delays and potential due process concerns.” Id. at 1. 12 This case has not been the subject of delays, let alone extended delays. Freeman filed her 13 motion three-and-a-half months after filing her amended complaint. ECF Nos. 7, 9. The 14 unfortunate reality is that the litigation process is slow because this court receives thousands of 15 cases each year with tens of thousands of motions that must be decided. When a plaintiff applies 16 to proceed in forma pauperis, the litigation process is even slower because the plaintiff’s 17 complaint must be screened under

(e)(2) to determine if any claim is subject to 18 dismissal. Lopez v. Smith,

, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) 19 applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”); accord Calhoun 20 v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). That screening process takes significant 21 time, and hundreds of complaints must be screened each year. Judges of this court must balance 22 those tasks against tasks in other civil and criminal cases they are assigned to. 23 ] While I am sympathetic to frustrations from the slow pace of litigation, this is simply the reality of the process. This case will be screened in the normal course. Nothing about this case merits expedited or special treatment. So, I deny Freeman’s request for me to immediately screen her complaint and rule on her in forma pauperis application. 5 I THEREFORE ORDER that the plaintiff's ex parte motion to compel ruling on her in 6|| forma pauperis application and screening of her complaint (ECF No. 7) is denied. The 7|| application to proceed in forma pauperis will be decided, and the complaint will be screened, by 8]| Magistrate Judge Weksler in the normal course. 9 DATED this day of June, 2025. 10 a2 ANDREWP.GORDON. SS D CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23