Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00215/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00215-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO CIENFUEGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GIPSON, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00215 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document 16)

Plaintiff Leo Cienfuegos (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 18, 2014. 

On October 29, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the screening 

order. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file an amended complaint, and explained 

that if he did not submit an amended complaint, his First Amended Complaint would be screened in 

due course.

On November 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis so that he can 

serve Defendants. While an inmate may move to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of service, 

Plaintiff’s motion is premature. At this time, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s amended 

///

///

 

1

Plaintiff paid the filing fee and is not proceeding in forma pauperis. 

Case 1:14-cv-00215-DAD-DLB Document 17 Filed 11/14/14 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

complaint. Until such time as the Court finds a cognizable claim, discussions relating to service of 

Defendants are premature.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00215-DAD-DLB Document 17 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 2