Austin v. State of California

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 8, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00252
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GREGORY A. AUSTIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00252-DAD-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS

14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF No. 4) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Gregory A. Austin (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se in this action, filed an application to 18 proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on April 6, 2022. (ECF No. 4.) 19 Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees. 20 Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the 21 Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the 23 action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 24 or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”); Cato v. 25 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a 26 complaint that has been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own 27 initiative and to decide whether the action has an arguable basis in law before permitting it to proceed.”); Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 1 | Jan. 3, 2018) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant 2 | to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the 3 | Marshal to effect service.”). 4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. ee 7 | Dated: _April 7, 2022 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28