1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 CRISTIAN YOVANI HERNANDEZ LOVO, Case No. 1: 22-cv-00220-AWI-SAB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

12 v.

ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT

13 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, OF INMATE FILING FEE BY MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND

14 Defendant. DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO

ISSUE PRISONER NEW CASE

15 DOCUMENTS

16 (ECF No. 4)

17 Plaintiff Cristian Yovani Hernandez Lovo, a prisoner proceeding pro se pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. §1983, has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has made the showing required by § 1915(a) and accordingly, the request 20 to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee 21 of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly 22 payments in the amount of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to 23 Plaintiff’s trust account. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is 24 required to send to the Clerk of the Court payments from plaintiff’s account each time the 25 amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915(b)(2). 27 Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the 1 Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the 3 action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 4 or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”); Cato v. 5 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a 6 complaint that has been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own 7 initiative and to decide whether the action has an arguable basis in law before permitting it to 8 proceed.”); Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 9 Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant 10 to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the 11 Marshal to effect service.”). 12 In accordance with the above and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY 13 ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; 15 2. The Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections or their designee 16 shall collect payments from Plaintiff’s jail trust account in an amount equal 17 to twenty per cent (20%) of the preceding month’s income credited to the 18 detainee’s trust account and shall forward those payments to the Clerk of the 19 Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, in accordance 20 with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), until a total of $350.00 has been collected and 21 forwarded to the Clerk of the Court. The payments shall be clearly 22 identified by the name and number assigned to this action; 23 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of 24 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application on the Director of the Michigan 25 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; 26 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial 27 Department, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento 1 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue prisoner new case documents in this 2 action; and 3 6. Within sixty (60) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit a 4 certified copy of his jail trust account statement for the six-month period 5 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, if Plaintiff has not already 6 done so. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ 9 | Dated: _March 21, 2022 _ ef 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28