Ardmmir Pearsall v. Unknown Police Officers

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants Ardmmir Pearsall leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directs payment of the filing fee in installments under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), permits Pearsall to file an amended complaint within 30 days, and explains the consequences of standing on the original complaint or failing to respond.

Holdings

1. Pearsall is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but remains responsible for paying the full $350 filing fee in installments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), regardless of the outcome of the case.
2. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
3. Pearsall may file an amended complaint within thirty days, and the amended complaint must be complete, identify all defendants in the caption and body, state the basis for each claim, and provide available identifying information.
4. If Pearsall elects to stand on the complaint, or fails to respond to the order, the court may issue a final dismissal based on that election or inferred intent; the six-factor Poulis test is not required for a dismissal based on a plaintiff's decision to stand on the complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pearsall should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Whether the complaint should be dismissed during statutory screening for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
3. Whether Pearsall should be granted leave to amend and be required to file a complete amended complaint identifying the defendants and the basis for each claim.
4. Whether a future decision to stand on the complaint, or failure to respond to the order, could support a final dismissal without requiring analysis under the Poulis factors.

Disposition

other