Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma grants Hailey Davis’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court concludes that the complaint contains only conclusory allegations, fails to state a claim, and cannot be cured by amendment.
Holdings
- The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted based on the representations and information provided by the plaintiff.
- The complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it contained only conclusory allegations and no factual allegations supporting a recognized legal claim.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice because amendment would be futile.
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under the screening standard in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
- Whether amendment should be permitted or would be futile.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1311 (10th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1175 (10th Cir. 1997)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…