Opinion
2:20-cv-01777-RFB-VCF
10-24-2023
GARY E. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL RESEARCH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1); COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1)
CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Gary E. Thomas filed a complaint (ECF No. 1-1), but he did not pay the filing fee until a few days later. Since the plaintiff did not pay his filing fee concurrently, the Clerk did not file his complaint. Plaintiff can proceed with his case pro se, without prior screening, since he is not a prisoner, he is not proceeding in forma pauperis, and he paid the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); See also Salat v. County of Sacramento, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89314, 2 citing to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Bardes v. Magera, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49289, 2008 WL 2627134 10 (D.S.C. 2008) (finding that it is error to screen a non-prisoner pro se plaintiff's complaint when the plaintiff pays the filing fee)(emphasis added).
Accordingly, I ORDER that the Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1).