(PC) Russ v. Price

Opinion

ROY RUSS, 1:24-cv-01466-CDB (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BRANDON PRICE, et al. (Doc. 5)

Defendants.

Plaintiff Roy Russ is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on December 3, 2024. (Id.). That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). On December 4, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff within 45 days of service of the order to submit a signed and completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or, in the alternative, pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 4). Therein, the Court noted that while Plaintiff, a civil detainee, may not be subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requirement that a prisoner-plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies and provide copies of prisoner trust fund account statements in support of any IFP application, he must comply with the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Local Rule 121 to submit a financial affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 2). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on January 6, 2025. (Doc. 5). Therein, Plaintiff attests he is being held at Coalinga State Hospital. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff attests he has no gross pay or wages. (Id.). Plaintiff attests he receives other source of income from family for canteen purchases, hygiene items, and phone calls. (Id.). Plaintiff attests he has no money in cash or in a checking or savings account. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff attests he owns no personal property or any item of value held in someone else’s name. (Id.). Plaintiff attests he has no monthly expenses nor any dependents who rely on his support. (Id.). Plaintiff attests he has no debts or financial obligations. (Id.). The application is signed and dated December 30, 2024. (Id.). Plaintiff does not appear to have been a “prisoner” as defined by the at the time he filed this action. Plaintiff asserts that he is a civil detainee involuntarily committed at Coalinga State Hospital under the Welfare and Institutions Code Section 6600. (Doc. 1 at 7). Therefore, neither the filing fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), nor § 1915(c)’s “three strikes” bar apply to this case. See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, examination of Plaintiff’s application reveals that he is unable to afford the costs of this action. (Doc. 5). Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has made the showing required by § 1915, and the request to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted. As to the status of the complaint, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of a pro se complaint where the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis to determine whether it is legally sufficient under the applicable pleading standards. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, if the Court determines that the complaint is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies in the complaint can be cured by amendment. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. If appropriate after the case has been screened, the Clerk of the Court will provide Plaintiff with the requisite forms and instructions to request the assistance of the United States Marshal in serving Defendants pursuant Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. /// /// Conclusion and Order Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5), for good cause appearing, is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ January 8, 2025 | Ww R~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE