Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01316/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01316-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Candace Smith, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint1on October 28, 2024, along with 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). Plaintiff 

has made the showing required by § 1915(a). 

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s complaint lists her address as 575 Minnewawa, Clovis, CA 93611. (ECF No. 1 

at 1, 2). However, in a case filed by Plaintiff on October 22, 2024, Smith v. Dyer et al., No. 1:24-CV-01288-

JLT-EPG, Plaintiff listed her address as 3269 Sample, Fresno, CA 93710. Plaintiff is reminded that she must 

make sure the Court has her current address by promptly filing a notice of change of address, pursuant to Local 

Rule 183(b), and that failing to do so may result in a dismissal of her case.

CANDACE SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY INN HOTEL, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01316-EPG

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 2). 

Case 1:24-cv-01316-KES-EPG Document 3 Filed 10/31/24 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 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 

O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2008) (“After a prisoner applies for in forma pauperis status and 

lodges a complaint with the district court, the district court screens the complaint and determines whether it 

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 

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 Plaintiff’s complaint in due course.

Case 1:24-cv-01316-KES-EPG Document 3 Filed 10/31/24 Page 2 of 2