Henderson v. Bakersfield Police Department

E.D. California

Henderson v. Bakersfield Police Department

DecidedJanuary 25, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-01771

StatusUnknown

This text of Henderson v. Bakersfield Police Department (Henderson v. Bakersfield Police Department) 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

Henderson v. Bakersfield Police Department, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 OCTAVIO JAMAL HENDERSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-01771-DAD-BAK

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. (ECF No. 8) 14 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT,

15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff Octavio Jamal Henderson, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on 18 December 15, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On January 18, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application 19 to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered Plaintiff to file a long form application. (ECF No. 7.) 20 On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a long form application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 21 No. 8.) 22 Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees. 23 Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the Court 24 screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 25 (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is 26 frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 27 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a complaint that has 1 | been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own initiative and to decide 2 | whether the action has an arguable basis in law before permitting it to proceed.”); Ross v. Padres 3 | LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 4 | 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 5 | 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect 6 | service.”). 7 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ 10 | Dated: _January 25, 2022 _ ef 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 OCTAVIO JAMAL HENDERSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-01771-DAD-BAK

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. (ECF No. 8) 14 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT,

15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff Octavio Jamal Henderson, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on 18 December 15, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On January 18, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application 19 to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered Plaintiff to file a long form application. (ECF No. 7.) 20 On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a long form application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 21 No. 8.) 22 Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees. 23 Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the Court 24 screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 25 (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is 26 frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 27 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a complaint that has 1 | been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own initiative and to decide 2 | whether the action has an arguable basis in law before permitting it to proceed.”); Ross v. Padres 3 | LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 4 | 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 5 | 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect 6 | service.”). 7 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ 10 | Dated: _January 25, 2022 _ ef 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Henderson v. Bakersfield Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-bakersfield-police-department-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack