United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (RECEIPT OF INITIATING DOCS. - ECF NO.
A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Rudy James
Lopez's failure to pay the standard filing fee or submit
an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”), meaning without prepaying the filing
fees. This proceeding is referred to the undersigned pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local
Rules of Practice.
Lopez has submitted a complaint as part of his initiating
documents (ECF No. 1), but he did not submit an IFP
application or pay the $400 filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a) and the Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees,
a $400 filing fee is required to commence a civil action in a
federal district court. The court may authorize a person to
commence an action without prepaying the $400 fee if the
person files an IFP application, including an affidavit
stating that he is financially unable to pay the fee.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); LSR 1-1. The court
will therefore instruct the Clerk of the Court to mail Lopez
one blank copy of the IFP application. Mr. Lopez will have
until April 20, 2018, to submit a completed
IFP application or pay the $400 filing fee.
Lopez submits a suitable IFP application and is granted IFP
status, the court will then screen his complaint. Federal
courts must screen any IFP complaint before allowing the case
to move forward, issuing summons, and requiring an answer or
responsive pleading. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). If the court determines
that the complaint states a plausible claim for relief, the
Clerk of the Court will be directed to issue summons to the
defendant(s) and the plaintiff must then serve the summons
and complaint within 90 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m). If the court determines that the complaint fails to
state an actionable claim, the complaint is dismissed without
prejudice and the plaintiff is ordinarily given leave to
amend with directions as to curing the pleading deficiencies
unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the
deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Cato v. United
States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
addition, the court notes that Mr. Lopez is currently
proceeding in this action pro se, which means he is
not represented by an attorney. See LSR 2-1. This
case has been referred to the Pro Bono Pilot Program for
“the purpose of screening for financial eligibility (if
necessary) and identifying counsel willing to be appointed as
pro bono counsel.” See Mar. 20, 2018 Order
(ECF No. 4). However, a referral to the program does not
guarantee that an attorney will be willing and available to
accept the appointment. Mr. Lopez must therefore comply with
all procedural rules and court orders on his own behalf
unless and until counsel files a notice of appearance.
Local Rules of Practice require parties to file a certificate
of interested parties identifying “all persons,
associations of persons, firms, partnerships or corporations
(including parent corporations) that have a direct, pecuniary
interest in the outcome of the case.” LR 7.1-1(a). The
certificate of interested parties must be filed with a
party's “first appearance, pleading, petition,
motion, response, or other request addressed to the
court.” LR 7.1-1(c). Upon filing the complaint, Lopez
was required to file his disclosure. Id. Mr. Lopez
will have until April 20, 2018, to file a
certificate of interested parties in compliance with LR
IT IS ORDERED:
Clerk of Court shall RETAIN the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1), but
SHALL NOT issue summons. / / / 2.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to mail Mr. Lopez one
blank IFP application (AO 240).
Lopez shall have until April 20, 2018, to
file an IFP application along with a signed and executed
financial affidavit disclosing the applicant's income,
assets, expenses and liabilities.
Alternatively, Lopez shall pay the $400 filing fee,
accompanied by a copy of this Order, on or before
April 20, 2018.
Lopez's failure to comply with this Order by: (a)
submitting an Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, or (b) paying the $400 filing fee, before the
deadline will result in a recommendation to the district
judge that this case be dismissed.
Lopez shall file a certificate of interested parties as
required by LR 7.1-1 of the Local Rules of Practice on or
before April 20, 2018. Failure to comply may
result in the issuance of an order to show cause why
sanctions should not be imposed.