Dunn v. HUD Urban Development

E.D. California

Dunn v. HUD Urban Development

DecidedMarch 25, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00815

StatusUnknown

This text of Dunn v. HUD Urban Development (Dunn v. HUD Urban Development) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunn v. HUD Urban Development, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMMA DUNN, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00815-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PENDING REQUESTS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 HUD URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., (Docs. 2, 5, 8, 9) 15 Defendants.

16 17 On October 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 18 that the pending requests to proceed in forma pauperis in this multi-plaintiff action be denied 19 because the $405.00 filing fee was paid. Doc. 9. The findings and recommendations were served 20 on plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn and contained notice that any objections thereto were 21 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs filed objections on October 22 29, 2024. Doc. 10. 23 Plaintiffs’ objections do not challenge the recommendation that their requests to proceed 24 in forma pauperis be denied given that the filing fee was paid. Id. Among other things, the 25 objections copy portions of a Ninth Circuit opinion addressing unrelated matters, inserting 26 plaintiffs’ names in place of the appellant. Compare Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 836 n.1 27 (9th Cir. 2014), with Doc. 10 at 15. Wilkerson considered issues relating to a state prisoner’s 28 exhaustion of administrative remedies on summary judgment and post-trial challenges to jury 1 | instructions. Wilkerson, 772 F.3d at 839-42. These issues are not implicated by the findings and 2 || recommendations. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 4 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the 5 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 18, 2024, Doc. 9, are 8 adopted in full; and 9 2. The pending requests to proceed in forma pauperis, Docs. 2, 5, and 8, are denied. 10 11 12 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 13 Dated: _ March 24, 2025 4h 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMMA DUNN, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00815-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PENDING REQUESTS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 HUD URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., (Docs. 2, 5, 8, 9) 15 Defendants.

16 17 On October 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 18 that the pending requests to proceed in forma pauperis in this multi-plaintiff action be denied 19 because the $405.00 filing fee was paid. Doc. 9. The findings and recommendations were served 20 on plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn and contained notice that any objections thereto were 21 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs filed objections on October 22 29, 2024. Doc. 10. 23 Plaintiffs’ objections do not challenge the recommendation that their requests to proceed 24 in forma pauperis be denied given that the filing fee was paid. Id. Among other things, the 25 objections copy portions of a Ninth Circuit opinion addressing unrelated matters, inserting 26 plaintiffs’ names in place of the appellant. Compare Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 836 n.1 27 (9th Cir. 2014), with Doc. 10 at 15. Wilkerson considered issues relating to a state prisoner’s 28 exhaustion of administrative remedies on summary judgment and post-trial challenges to jury 1 | instructions. Wilkerson, 772 F.3d at 839-42. These issues are not implicated by the findings and 2 || recommendations. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 4 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the 5 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 18, 2024, Doc. 9, are 8 adopted in full; and 9 2. The pending requests to proceed in forma pauperis, Docs. 2, 5, and 8, are denied. 10 11 12 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 13 Dated: _ March 24, 2025 4h 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dunn v. HUD Urban Development, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-hud-urban-development-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack