Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00204/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00204-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCDONALDS INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 8)

Candace Smith, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this action on February 15, 2024. 

(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis wherein she stated she was 

currently employed but failed to state her take-home salary or wages. (Id.) The Court denied 

Plaintiff’s application without prejudice and ordered her to either file a completed application or 

pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 3.)

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second short form application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) However, Plaintiff stated she was not employed due to a car accident as 

of February 7, 2024, which is a different response than that provided in her first application filed 

on February 15, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff also responded “no” to question number 3(a) 

requesting information regarding whether she has received income from a business, profession, 

or other self-employment in the past twelve months. (Id.) If Plaintiff was employed “as of 

February 7, 2024” as stated in question two, she should have indicated her income in the past 

Case 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB Document 9 Filed 04/24/24 Page 1 of 3
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

twelve months in response to question three. Accordingly, on February 26, 2024, the Court 

issued an order stating it cannot determine from the information provided in both short form 

applications whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in this action without prepayment of fees. 

(ECF No. 5.) The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to complete and file an Application to 

Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 or, 

alternatively, pay the filing fee in this action within thirty days. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff failed to file 

a long form application or pay the filing fee within thirty days pursuant to the Court’s order. 

On April 8, 2024, the Court issued findings and recommendations recommending 

Plaintiff’s action be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order for failing to timely 

file a long form in forma pauperis application, failure to prosecute, and failure to pay the filing 

fee. (ECF No. 6.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at

4.) The Court also advised Plaintiff that she may still file an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis during the objection period and the Court will consider the application. (Id.) 

On April 22, 2024, the final day of the objection period, Plaintiff filed a third short form 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff’s third short form application 

suffers from the same deficiencies as her first and second and does not provide the Court with 

sufficient information to determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in this action without 

prepayment of fees. Further, the Court’s February 26, 2024 order required Plaintiff to file a long 

form application, which the Court attached to its order. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff still has not 

complied with the Court’s order requiring completion and submission of a long form in forma 

pauperis application, or, alternatively, payment of the filing fee in full. 

Accordingly, the Court’s February 26, 2024 order that Plaintiff complete and file an 

Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 

239 remains outstanding. (ECF No. 5.) However, the Court will, as a courtesy, extend the 

deadline to file objections to the Court’s pending findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8) by 

an additional fourteen (14) days. Within that time period, Plaintiff may file objections to the 

Court’s findings and recommendations or pay the filing fee in this action. Plaintiff may still file 

Case 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB Document 9 Filed 04/24/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

an application to proceed file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 

Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 during the objection period and the Court will consider 

the application. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is DENIED 

without prejudice;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a courtesy copy in forma pauperis

application (Long Form) to Plaintiff; and

3. The Court shall extend the deadline to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 6) by fourteen (14) days after entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB Document 9 Filed 04/24/24 Page 3 of 3