Moore v. Fagundes ( 2023 )

—_—_—_———s mI III II IIE III IEEE EIEIO IE EI EES 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 g || CHRISTINE MOORE, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00846-JLT-EPG 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA 11 Vv. PAUPERIS KEITH FAGUNDES, (ECF No. 2). 13 Defendant. 14 IS Plaintiff Christine Moore, proceeding pro se in this civil case, has requested leave to proceed 16 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. CECF No. 2). Plaintiff has made the requisite showir 17 required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, Plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2 18 || is granted.! 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21! Dated: _ June 5, 2023 Fahey — 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 The Court notes that, because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, Plaintiff’s 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.