Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00476-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathy Davis
Defendant
Candace Smith
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 complaint on April 22, 2024, along with an 

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

denied Plaintiff’s application without prejudice and directed Plaintiff to submit the long-form 

application or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 3). On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a completed application 

requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4). 

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

CANDACE SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHY DAVIS, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 4). 

Case 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG Document 5 Filed 05/15/24 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

The Court finds Plaintiff has made the showing required by §1915. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is granted.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 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-00476-JLT-EPG Document 5 Filed 05/15/24 Page 2 of 2