James Edward Scott III v. Davita, Inc, et al.

Opinion

kee JAMES EDWARD SCOTT III, Case No. 3:26-CV-00046-CLB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR USM-285 FORMS AND V. FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR SERVICE DAVITA, INC, et al., [ECF Nos. 6, 7] Defendants. Before the Court is Plaintiff James Edward Scott III's (“Scott”) motion for provision of USM-285 forms, (ECF No. 6), and motion for extension of time to serve Defendants in this case. (ECF No. 7.) However, Scott has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 5.) Prior to ordering service on any Defendant, the Court is required to screen an in forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under certain circumstances. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting the in forma pauperis statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint for the enumerated reasons). Such screening is required before a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 507 (9th Cir. 2015). As the Court has not yet screened Scott’s complaint, his motions for USM-285 forms and for extension of the deadline to complete service of process are premature. Consequently, both motions, (ECF Nos. 6, 7), are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. . DATED: February 11, 2026 UNITED on MAGISTRATE JUDGE