1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KIRK ARDELL SJODIN, JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-00454-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

13 v. (ECF No. 7) 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Kirk Ardell Sjodin, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated in Hurricane, Utah, 18 and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 19 Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees in 20 this action. (ECF No. 2.) On March 28, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed 21 in forma pauperis without prejudice. (ECF No. 5.) On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a renewed 22 application to proceed in forma pauperis, attaching the appropriate certified trust account 23 statement. (ECF No. 7.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to 24 proceed without prepayment of fees. 25 Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the 26 Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 1 | or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”); Cato v. 2 | United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a 3 | complaint that has been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own 4 | initiative and to decide whether the action has an arguable basis in law before permitting it to 5 | proceed.”); Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 6 | Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant 7 | to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the 8 | Marshal to effect service.”). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 10 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. 11 2. Service shall not be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due 12 course and issues its screening order. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 15 | Dated: _April 18, 2023 _ ee 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28