Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Vincent Boyd’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and dismissed it for failure to identify a cognizable claim or the law or right allegedly violated. Dismissal was without prejudice, and Boyd was granted leave to file an amended complaint by December 18, 2025.
Holdings
- Plaintiff demonstrated an inability to prepay fees and costs or provide security, so the court granted his request to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The complaint failed to state a claim because it did not identify what claim plaintiff asserted or which law or constitutional right defendants allegedly violated.
- The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because the court did not determine that its deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff satisfied the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under the screening standards of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Whether dismissal should be with leave to amend.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
- Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)(followed)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945, 947 (9th Cir. 1973)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…