Summary
This document is an order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California addressing a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court grants in forma pauperis status, assesses the statutory filing fee, dismisses the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and grants leave to amend within thirty days. The document also includes a notice-of-amendment form.
Holdings
- The complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) because its allegations were vague and conclusory and did not specifically identify the acts or omissions of each defendant that allegedly violated plaintiff's constitutional rights.
- The complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with leave to amend, because its vague and conclusory allegations did not permit the court to determine whether it was frivolous or failed to state a claim.
- Plaintiff's requests to proceed in forma pauperis were granted because his declaration made the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), subject to payment of the statutory filing fee and an initial partial filing fee.
- Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days that complies with the court's order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice.
Questions Presented
- Whether the prisoner complaint stated claims sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- Whether the complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)'s requirement of a short and plain statement giving defendants fair notice of the claims and their grounds.
- Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend after dismissal of the deficient complaint.
- Whether plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis and was subject to the statutory filing-fee requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (43)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989)(followed)
- Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(followed)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)(followed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)(followed)
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)(limited)
- Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984)(followed)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 43.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…