Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Ronald Satish Emrit’s in forma pauperis action with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that the complaint’s allegations were clearly baseless and frivolous, and stated that judgment would be separately entered.
Holdings
- The complaint was frivolous because its allegations were clearly baseless and its factual contentions rose to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.
- A district court may dismiss a frivolous pro se complaint without leave to amend; the complaint here was properly dismissed with prejudice.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
- Whether the complaint's factual allegations were sufficiently irrational or wholly incredible to qualify as factually frivolous.
- Whether dismissal of the frivolous pro se complaint should be with prejudice and without leave to amend.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (6)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)(followed)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)(followed)
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…