Allen v. Western Governors University

D. Nevada

Allen v. Western Governors University

DecidedApril 22, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00325

StatusUnknown

This text of Allen v. Western Governors University (Allen v. Western Governors University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Western Governors University, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 EDWARD C. ALLEN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00325-RFB-NJK

8 Plaintiff, Order

9 v. [Docket No. 1]

10 WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket 14 No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. 15 Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis, Docket No. 1, is GRANTED pursuant 16 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff is not required to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is permitted to 17 maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or 18 costs of the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis 19 does not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. The Clerk’s 20 Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint, Docket No. 1-2, on the docket. 21 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court generally screens the 22 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The purpose of this screening process is to protect 23 defendants from bearing the expense of responding to frivolous or malicious suits. See, e.g., 24 Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014). In this case, however, Defendants have 25 filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 15. Given those circumstances, screening the complaint in 26 this case would serve no purpose because Defendants have already appeared. Cf. Johnson v. 27 Barrett, 2020 WL 6330016, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 31, 2020) (“when defendants file a responsive 28 1} pleading, such as a motion to dismiss, the need for screening is obviated”). Accordingly, the Court will not screen the complaint in this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 22, 2025 . 5 FAN x. Nancy 4 ppe 6 UnitedStates Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 EDWARD C. ALLEN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00325-RFB-NJK

8 Plaintiff, Order

9 v. [Docket No. 1]

10 WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket 14 No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. 15 Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis, Docket No. 1, is GRANTED pursuant 16 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff is not required to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is permitted to 17 maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or 18 costs of the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis 19 does not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. The Clerk’s 20 Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint, Docket No. 1-2, on the docket. 21 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court generally screens the 22 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The purpose of this screening process is to protect 23 defendants from bearing the expense of responding to frivolous or malicious suits. See, e.g., 24 Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014). In this case, however, Defendants have 25 filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 15. Given those circumstances, screening the complaint in 26 this case would serve no purpose because Defendants have already appeared. Cf. Johnson v. 27 Barrett, 2020 WL 6330016, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 31, 2020) (“when defendants file a responsive 28 1} pleading, such as a motion to dismiss, the need for screening is obviated”). Accordingly, the Court will not screen the complaint in this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 22, 2025 . 5 FAN x. Nancy 4 ppe 6 UnitedStates Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Allen v. Western Governors University, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-western-governors-university-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack