Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00425/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00425-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REVEREND WESLEY CRAWFORD SR.,

SHONTELLE CRAWFORD, and PRECIOUS

RECHELLE LEWIS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

KERN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, DONALD

CARTER, KERN HIGH SCHOOL

DISTRICT, SUPERINTENDANT, and

DEAN MCGREE, KERN HIGH SCHOOL

DISTRICT, WEST HIGH SCHOOL

PRINCIPAL,

Defendants.

 _____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:10-cv-0425-OWW-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS (Docs. 6, 7, 8).

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS

WESLEY AND SHONTELLE CRAWFORD

TO PAY FILING FEE AT TIME OF FILING

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNLESS

ANOTHER PLAINTIFF FILES A MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

PRECIOUS LEWIS TO PAY FILING FEE

OR SUBMIT NEW APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WHEN

SHE FILES FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT UNLESS ANOTHER

PLAINTIFF FILES A MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

1

Case 1:10-cv-00425-OWW -JLT Document 11 Filed 06/21/10 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

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On May 12, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations that the

District Judge deny each plaintiffs’ respective application to proceed in forma pauperis. With

respect to Plaintiffs Wesley and Shontelle Crawford, the Court found that their income was

sufficient to allow the to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 10 at 3-4). With respect to Plaintiff Precious

Lewis, the Court recommended that her application be denied for failure to comply with the

Court’s order. (Id. at 2-3). In addition, the Court recommended that the IFP applications be

denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because the complaint failed to state a claim. (Id. at

4). 

The Court further recommended that Plaintiff be granted leave to file an amended

complaint. (Doc. 10 at 16). The Court recommended that if an amended complaint is filed,

Plaintiff’s Wesley and Rechelle Crawford pay the filing fee at that time unless a co-plaintiff filed

a new IFP motion. (Id.) The Court recommended that Plaintiff Lewis either pay the filing fee at

that time or submit a complete, signed application to proceed IFP unless a co-plaintiff filed an

IFP motion. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties on May 17,

2010, and contained notice requiring any objections be filed within 20 days of service of a copy

of the said findings and recommendations. (Id. at 17). No party has filed any objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley

United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo th

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings

and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 12, 2010, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Motions to Proceed in forma pauperis by plaintiffs, Wesley

and Shontelle Crawford, are DENIED;

3. Plaintiffs, Wesley and Shontelle Crawford, are ORDERED to pay

2

Case 1:10-cv-00425-OWW -JLT Document 11 Filed 06/21/10 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

the filing fee at the time they file their First Amended Complaint

unless a co-plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis at

that time;

4. The Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis by plaintiff, Precious

Lewis, is DENIED without prejudice;

5. Plaintiff, Precious Lewis, is ORDERED to pay the filing fee or

submit a complete, signed application to proceed in forma pauperis

at the time she files her First Amended Complaint unless a coplaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis; 

6.. The complaint IS DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted;

7. Plaintiffs are granted thirty (30) days from service of this order to

file a First Amended Complaint; and

8. Plaintiffs ARE INFORMED that failure to comply with the

provisions of this order will result in the dismissal or termination

of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00425-OWW -JLT Document 11 Filed 06/21/10 Page 3 of 3