Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Defendants Marcella Trotsiouk and Igor Trotsiouk’s motion to dismiss as premature. Because the pro se plaintiff’s complaint had not yet undergone mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the motion was denied without prejudice, leaving Defendants an opportunity to respond after screening.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants' motion to dismiss should be considered before the court completed mandatory screening of the in forma pauperis complaint.
Holdings
- A motion to dismiss filed before the court completes screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is premature and should be denied without prejudice.
Key quotations
“Therefore, Defendants Marcella Trotsiouk and Igor Trotsiouk’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is denied as premature.” (at 1)
“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is denied without prejudice.” (at 2)
Factual background
Galina V. Andreyev proceeded pro se and filed a complaint after moving to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint had not yet been screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) when Marcella Trotsiouk and Igor Trotsiouk moved to dismiss.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the complaint on May 16, 2025, and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. After granting IFP status, the court was required to screen the complaint, but screening had not yet occurred when defendants filed their motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion as premature and without prejudice.