Crawford et al v. Kern High School District Board of Trustee, et al, No. 1:2010cv00425 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 6 , 7 and 8 Plaintiffs' Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; ORDER DISMISSING 1 Plaintiffs' Complaint With Leave to Amend; ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiffs Wesley and Shontelle Crawford to Pay Filing Fee at Time of Filing First Amended Complaint Unless Another Plaintiff Files a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; and ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff Precious Lewis to Pay Filing Fee at Time of Filing First Amended Complaint Unless Another Plaintiff Files a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/18/2010. First Amended Complaint due by 7/26/2010. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Crawford et al v. Kern High School District Board of Trustee, et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 REVEREND WESLEY CRAWFORD SR., ) SHONTELLE CRAWFORD, and PRECIOUS ) RECHELLE LEWIS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) KERN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ) BOARD OF TRUSTEES, DONALD ) CARTER, KERN HIGH SCHOOL ) DISTRICT, SUPERINTENDANT, and ) DEAN MCGREE, KERN HIGH SCHOOL ) DISTRICT, WEST HIGH SCHOOL ) PRINCIPAL, Case No. 1:10-cv-0425-OWW-JLT ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Docs. 6, 7, 8). ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS WESLEY AND SHONTELLE CRAWFORD TO PAY FILING FEE AT TIME OF FILING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNLESS ANOTHER PLAINTIFF FILES A MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendants. _____________________________________ ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF PRECIOUS LEWIS TO PAY FILING FEE OR SUBMIT NEW APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WHEN SHE FILES FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNLESS ANOTHER PLAINTIFF FILES A MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant 1 2 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 § 636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 4 On May 12, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations that the 5 District Judge deny each plaintiffs’ respective application to proceed in forma pauperis. With 6 respect to Plaintiffs Wesley and Shontelle Crawford, the Court found that their income was 7 sufficient to allow the to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 10 at 3-4). With respect to Plaintiff Precious 8 Lewis, the Court recommended that her application be denied for failure to comply with the 9 Court’s order. (Id. at 2-3). In addition, the Court recommended that the IFP applications be 10 denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because the complaint failed to state a claim. (Id. at 11 4). 12 The Court further recommended that Plaintiff be granted leave to file an amended 13 complaint. (Doc. 10 at 16). The Court recommended that if an amended complaint is filed, 14 Plaintiff’s Wesley and Rechelle Crawford pay the filing fee at that time unless a co-plaintiff filed 15 a new IFP motion. (Id.) The Court recommended that Plaintiff Lewis either pay the filing fee at 16 that time or submit a complete, signed application to proceed IFP unless a co-plaintiff filed an 17 IFP motion. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties on May 17, 18 2010, and contained notice requiring any objections be filed within 20 days of service of a copy 19 of the said findings and recommendations. (Id. at 17). No party has filed any objections. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 21 United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo 22 review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings 23 and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 12, 2010, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 26 2. The Motions to Proceed in forma pauperis by plaintiffs, Wesley 27 28 and Shontelle Crawford, are DENIED; 3. Plaintiffs, Wesley and Shontelle Crawford, are ORDERED to pay 2 1 the filing fee at the time they file their First Amended Complaint 2 unless a co-plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis at 3 that time; 4 4. 5 6 The Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis by plaintiff, Precious Lewis, is DENIED without prejudice; 5. Plaintiff, Precious Lewis, is ORDERED to pay the filing fee or 7 submit a complete, signed application to proceed in forma pauperis 8 at the time she files her First Amended Complaint unless a co- 9 plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis; 10 6.. 11 12 claim upon which relief may be granted; 7. 13 14 The complaint IS DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to state a Plaintiffs are granted thirty (30) days from service of this order to file a First Amended Complaint; and 8. Plaintiffs ARE INFORMED that failure to comply with the 15 provisions of this order will result in the dismissal or termination 16 of this action. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: June 18, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
