Washington v. Dillard

E.D. California

Washington v. Dillard

DecidedMarch 24, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00431

StatusUnknown

This text of Washington v. Dillard (Washington v. Dillard) 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

Washington v. Dillard, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 PERRY KENJI WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00431-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS

14 CURTIS DILLARD, et al., (ECF No. 2) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Perry Kenji Washington (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se in this action, filed an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on April 6, 2022. (ECF 19 No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees. 20 Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the 21 Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the 23 action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 24 or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”); Cato v. 25 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a 26 complaint that has been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own 27 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. 1 | Jan. 3, 2018) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant 2 | to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the 3 | Marshal to effect service.”). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 5 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 6 and 7 2. Service shall not be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due 8 course and issues its screening order. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 11 | Dated: _ March 23, 2023

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 PERRY KENJI WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00431-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS

14 CURTIS DILLARD, et al., (ECF No. 2) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Perry Kenji Washington (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se in this action, filed an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on April 6, 2022. (ECF 19 No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees. 20 Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the 21 Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the 23 action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 24 or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”); Cato v. 25 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a 26 complaint that has been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own 27 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. 1 | Jan. 3, 2018) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant 2 | to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the 3 | Marshal to effect service.”). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 5 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 6 and 7 2. Service shall not be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due 8 course and issues its screening order. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 11 | Dated: _ March 23, 2023

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Washington v. Dillard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-dillard-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack