Sjodin, Jr. v. State of California

E.D. California

Sjodin, Jr. v. State of California

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 18, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00454·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRK ARDELL SJODIN, JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-00454-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. (ECF No. 7) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff Kirk Ardell Sjodin, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated in Hurricane, Utah, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees in this action. (ECF No. 2.) On March 28, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice. (ECF No. 5.) On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis, attaching the appropriate certified trust account statement. (ECF No. 7.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees. Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks 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 been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own initiative and to decide whether the action has an arguable basis in law before permitting it to proceed.”); Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect service.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. 2. Service shall not be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Dated: _April 18, 2023 _ ee UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRK ARDELL SJODIN, JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-00454-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. (ECF No. 7) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff Kirk Ardell Sjodin, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated in Hurricane, Utah, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees in this action. (ECF No. 2.) On March 28, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice. (ECF No. 5.) On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis, attaching the appropriate certified trust account statement. (ECF No. 7.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees. Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks 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 been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own initiative and to decide whether the action has an arguable basis in law before permitting it to proceed.”); Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect service.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. 2. Service shall not be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Dated: _April 18, 2023 _ ee UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Sjodin, Jr. v. State of California, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Sjodin, Jr. v. State of California (Sjodin, Jr. v. State of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related