Anthony Mills v. Arlene Bluth

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed pro se plaintiff Anthony Mills’s complaint against Arlene Bluth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. The court held that the complaint lacked sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction or a plausible claim and that allowing amendment would be futile.

Holdings

1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, using the same standard applicable to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
2. The complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to establish the court's jurisdiction or to state a plausible claim for relief.
3. Leave to amend was not warranted because it would be futile where the court could not construe the complaint as stating a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
2. Whether the pro se complaint alleged sufficient facts to establish the court's jurisdiction and state a plausible claim for relief.
3. Whether Mills should be granted leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed