Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Rochanda Ziegler’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismisses the complaint for failure to identify a legal cause of action or allege sufficient facts, but grants leave to amend within thirty days.
Holdings
- The plaintiff's application satisfied the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), so the request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted.
- The complaint failed to state a claim because it identified no specific cause of action and alleged no facts from which the court could infer a claim within the court's original jurisdiction.
- The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it was not absolutely clear that amendment could not cure the pleading defects.
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under the screening standard applicable to in forma pauperis proceedings.
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed with leave to amend because its deficiencies might be cured by amendment.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (11)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000)(followed)
- Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (1987)(followed)
- Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam)(followed)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989)(followed)
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011)(followed)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)(followed)
- Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (1981)(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (1987)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…