Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois grants Rachel Dixon's application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismisses her pro se civil-rights complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because the allegations lack sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief. The court grants leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days.
Holdings
- Dixon demonstrated that she was unable to pay the costs of proceeding, so her request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief and was subject to dismissal without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Questions Presented
- Whether Dixon qualified to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (8)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)(cited)
- Coleman v. Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm'n of Wis., 860 F.3d 461, 468 (7th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649, 651-52 (7th Cir. 2013)(followed)
- Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Roake v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook Cnty., 849 F.3d 342, 346 (7th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…