Almy v. Adams et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 6 Motion to Proceed; advising that if Plaintiff seeks to remove this case from screening, he must pay the full $400 filing fee. If Plaintiff chooses not to pay the filing fee, the Court will screen Plaintiff's complaint in due course, which may take several months. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 10/3/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C/O MINOR ADAMS et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ___________________________________ ) 13 I. 7 8 9 10 11 KEVIN ALMY, 3:17-cv-00390-RCJ-WGC ORDER DISCUSSION 14 On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis for 15 prisoners and submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1, 1- 16 1). In September 2017, Plaintiff was released from prison. (See ECF No. 6). Plaintiff now 17 asserts that he is no longer subject to the filing fee or screening process because he is no 18 longer incarcerated. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff seeks to proceed with pre-trial discovery. (Id.) 19 The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is no longer subject to the screening 20 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because Plaintiff is no longer a “prisoner” within the 21 meaning of the statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). However, Plaintiff is subject to the 22 screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii), 23 “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 24 appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 25 or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” This 26 provision applies to all actions filed in forma pauperis, whether or not the plaintiff is 27 incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Calhoun v. 28 Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 1 As such, even though Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, the Court must screen 2 Plaintiff’s complaint under § 1915(e)(2) because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis 3 in this action. Plaintiff may remove himself from the screening process in this case if he pays 4 the $400 filing fee for initiating this civil action. 5 II. 6 7 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED the motion to proceed (ECF No. 6) is denied. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff seeks to remove this case from screening, 9 he shall pay the full $400 fee for filing a civil action (which includes the $350 filing fee and the 10 $50 administrative fee). 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff chooses not to pay the $400 filing fee, the 12 Court will screen Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint in due course. Due to the Court’s caseload, 13 the screening process may take several months. 14 15 3rd DATED: This _____ day of October, 2017. 16 17 _________________________________ United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?