Dunn v. HUD Urban Development

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EMMA DUNN, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00815-KES-BAM

8 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 v. REGARDING PENDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATIONS 10 HUD URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., (Docs. 2, 5, 8) 11 Defendants. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 12

13 On July 16, 2024, Emma Dunn, Ariel Dunn, Richie Dunn, Aaliyah Dunn, and Ashanti 14 Dunn (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant civil action. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff Emma Dunn also filed an 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) On July 22, 2024, the Court reviewed these 16 filings, identified various deficiencies, and ordered as follows: (1) if Plaintiffs Ariel Dunn, Richie 17 Dunn, Aaliyah Dunn, and Ashanti Dunn wish to proceed in this action along with Plaintiff Emma 18 Dunn, then they shall file an amended complaint that includes the signatures of each plaintiff 19 proceeding pro se; (2) if Plaintiffs Ariel Dunn, Richie Dunn, Aaliyah Dunn, and Ashanti Dunn 20 wish to proceed in this action, then they shall file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, 21 completed and signed, or in the alternative pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action; and (3) 22 Plaintiff Emma Dunn shall file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and 23 signed, or in the alternative, pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 3.) 24 On August 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, along with a joint 25 application by Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 4, 26 5.) On October 4, 2024, the Court reviewed these filings, identified various issues, and ordered as 27 follows: (1) if Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn wish to proceed together in this action, 28 1 then they shall file an amended complaint that includes both of their signatures; and (2) Plaintiffs 2 Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn shall each complete and file an Application to Proceed in District 3 Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 or, in the alternative, pay the 4 $405.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 6.) 5 On October 10, 2024, the $405.00 filing fee for this action was paid. (See generally 6 Docket.) On the same date, Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn filed what appears to be a 7 second amended complaint, (Doc. 7), along with an application by Plaintiff Alana Dunn to 8 proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 8.) 9 In a multiple-plaintiff case, such as this one, only one filing fee needs to be paid. See 10 Dupont v. Sterling Family Trust, No.2:23-cv-09785-SVW-AS, 2024 WL 589880, at * 1 (C.D. 11 Cal. Jan. 19, 2024) (noting only one filing fee needs to be paid in a multiple-plaintiff case); see 12 also Warren v. Wasden, No. 1:23-CV-00116-DCN, 2023 WL 3886491, at *1 (D. Idaho June 8, 13 2023) (“When multiple plaintiffs file a complaint only one filing fee need be paid.”); Vega v. 14 Weeks Wholesale Rose Grower, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00225-OWW-TAG, 2007 WL 587005, at *2 15 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2007) (denying remaining applications to proceed in forma pauperis where 16 other plaintiffs financially able to pay the fee “[b]ecause there is only one filing fee to be paid in 17 [a] multi-plaintiff action”). Because the filing fee has been paid in this action, IT IS HEREBY 18 RECOMMENDED that the pending requests to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2, 5, 8) be 19 DENIED. 20 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 21 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 22 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiffs may 23 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 24 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 25 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 26 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 27 limit may not be considered. Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections within the 28 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 1 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 2 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: October 17, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

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