Lorenz v. Shepard

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 9, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00604
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

——ee— EIEIO III III EIEIO IIE IIE OIE IGE IEEE OS

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 g || ALICIA LORENZ, et al., Case No.: 1:23-cv-00604-JLT-EPG 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA 11 Vv. PAUPERIS M. SHEPARD, et al., (ECF Nos. 3,4). 13 Defendants. 14 IS Plaintiffs Alicia Lorenz and Patrick Lorenz proceed pro se in this action and have requested 16 leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 3 & 4). Plaintiffs have 17 || made the requisite showing required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in 18 || forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 3 &4) are granted.! 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _May 8, 2023 Fahey — 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 ||! The Court notes that, because Plaintiffs proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiffs’ complaint is subject to screening before the Court authorizes the Clerk of the Court to issue summons. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also 26 || O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2008) (“After a prisoner applies for in forma pauperis status ar lodges a complaint with the district court, the district court screens the complaint and determines whether it 27 || contains cognizable claims. If not, the district court must dismiss the complaint.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that “section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just 28 || those filed by prisoners”); Preciado v. Salas, No. 1:13-cv-0390-LJO-BAM, 2014 WL 127710, at *1 (E.D. Cal Jan. 14, 2014) (“The Court is required to screen complaints brought by plaintiffs proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.”). Accordingly, the Court will screen Plaintiffs’ complaint in due course.