Stroud Jr. v. City of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLARD RICHARD STROUD JR., Case No.: 24cv1652 DMS (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION 13 vs. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) DIRECTING 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT POLICE CHIEF SCOTT WAHL, 15 SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND OFFICER MCNETT, and DOES 1-25, COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 16 Defendants. U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND FED. R. CIV. 17 P. 4(c)(3) 18 19 Plaintiff Willard Richard Stroud Jr., a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 20 Complaint alleging a violation of his federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff did not pay the 21 $405 civil filing fee required to commence this action, but rather, filed a motion to proceed 22 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 Motion to Proceed IFP 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 27 prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). This Court 1 || finds Plaintiffs affidavit of assets is sufficient to show he is unable to pay the fees or post 2 securities required to maintain this action. See Civil Local Rule 3.2(d). Accordingly, the 3 || Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 4 ||Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 5 Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 1s subject 6 a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds the Complaint 7 “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 8 ||seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 9 || 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). Here, the Court has conducted 11 initial review of Plaintiffs Complaint, and finds it sufficient to survive the screening 12 || provisions of § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly: 13 1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint, summons and 14 |/this Order upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs 15 || of service shall be advanced by the United States. 16 2. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by 17 || counsel, upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document 18 || submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to 19 filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and 20 || correct copy of any document was served on the Defendant or counsel for Defendant and 21 ||the date of service. Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge which has 22 |/not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be 23 || disregarded. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: February 27, 2025 ~ f 26 a YM « Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 28