1 WO
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Cameron Gates, No. CV-25-03627-PHX-SHD
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Town of Quartzsite, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14
15 By prior Order, I granted pro se Plaintiff Cameron Gates’ Application to Proceed In
16 Forma Pauperis, screened his Complaint, (Doc. 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and
17 granted Gates leave to file a First Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified
18 in his § 1983 Equal Protection claim against the Town of Quartzsite. (Doc. 8.) Gates filed
19 his First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 13), on May 7, 2026.
20 I have screened Gates’ First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
21 § 1915(e)(2). Gates may now serve the First Amended Complaint and Summons on the
22 Defendants.1
23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 13),
24 may proceed.
25
1 As I cautioned in my prior Order, the preparation of filings by an attorney who has
26 not entered an appearance, i.e., ghostwriting, is unacceptable. See Flynn v. Love, 2023 WL
2561158, at *4 (D. Nev. 2023). An attorney who ghostwrites filings for an ostensibly pro
27 se litigant may be subject to discipline. I further advise Gates that, should he continue to
proceed pro se, he will not be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees associated with this action.
28 Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 435 (1991) (“[A] pro se litigant who is not a lawyer is not
entitled to attorney’s fees.”) (emphases in original)).
1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gates shall serve the First Amended Complaint
|| and Summons on the Defendants pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
|| and may choose to request that the Defendants waive service of the First Amended
Complaint and Summons under Rule 4(d).
5 Dated this 18th day of May, 2026.
6
7 /
10 H le Sharad H. Desai
I] United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.