Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01954/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01954-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAIMI SHOAGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01954-KJM-JDP (PS)

ORDER

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION ARE 

DENIED

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

ISSUE SUMMONS FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

COMPLETE SERVICE UPON THEM

ECF Nos. 2, 5, & 6

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initially sought to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2 & 

5. Before those motions were adjudicated, however, he tendered the filing fee. Accordingly, I

will deny his applications to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 2 & 5, as unnecessary. I have 

also reviewed plaintiff’s motion for clarification, ECF No. 6, wherein he mentions another case 

filed in an appellate court in San Francisco and he inquires whether the court has “mistaken” the 

two cases, id. at 1. I am unaware of plaintiff’s cases filed in other courts. This case will proceed 

based on this order and the directions herein should prove clarifying. Accordingly, I will deny 

the motion for clarification. 

Case 2:21-cv-01954-DC-JDP Document 7 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In light of plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee, his amended complaint is no longer subject 

to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Ohan v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

155854, *2 (D. Alaska July 19, 2023) (“Plaintiff has paid the filing fee and non-prisoner 

complaints are not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) or 1915A screening requirements.”). Thus, I 

will direct the Clerk of Court to issue summons to the defendants. Plaintiff is directed to 

complete service upon the defendants, and I will extend the deadline for doing so. Under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is 

filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must 

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. Given that summons did not issue at 

the time plaintiff paid the filing, I find good cause to extend the time for completing service. It 

must be accomplished within ninety days of this order’s issuance. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 2 & 5, and motion 

for clarification, ECF No. 6, are denied.

2. The Clerk of Court shall issue summons for the defendants.

3. Plaintiff is directed to serve all defendants within ninety days of this order’s entry.

4. Failure to do so may result in a recommendation that any unserved defendants be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect services of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01954-DC-JDP Document 7 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 2