Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted Josephine Ngaruiya’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed her complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., with prejudice because it raised the same or substantially similar claims previously dismissed with prejudice, making amendment futile. The court denied her motion to allow electronic filing as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether the complaint required dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because it repeated claims previously dismissed with prejudice.
- Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend.
- Whether the motion to allow electronic filing should be denied as moot after dismissal.
Holdings
- The plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis because she could not pay court costs while still affording the necessities of life.
- The complaint was required to be dismissed with prejudice because it asserted the same claims previously dismissed with prejudice.
- Leave to amend was properly denied because any amendment would be futile.
Key quotations
“Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious.” (at 2)
“A dismissal with prejudice precludes a party from reiterating the same claims in a later case.” (at 3)
“Because any amendment would be futile, she will not be granted leave to amend.” (at 3)
Factual background
Ngaruiya brought claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., principally under Title VII, concerning alleged sexual harassment, employment discrimination, pay discrimination, and retaliation. She had previously brought the same claims, and that earlier action had been dismissed with prejudice without further leave to amend. The court determined that the present complaint repeated those claims and that amendment would be futile.
Procedural history
Ngaruiya filed claims principally under Title VII alleging sexual harassment, employment discrimination, pay discrimination, and retaliation. She had previously asserted the same or substantially similar claims in an action dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend, and another later action raising substantially similar claims was also dismissed. The court granted in forma pauperis status, dismissed the present complaint with prejudice, denied the electronic-filing motion as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.