Collier v. Robertsons

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Irina Collier’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court sua sponte dismissed the complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), finding that the allegations and legal theories were unclear, nonviable, and duplicative of prior litigation arising from a family-law matter. The court denied the motion to appoint counsel as moot.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis upon submitting an affidavit demonstrating inability to pay court costs while providing the necessities of life. Collier's affidavit established that she qualified.
2. The complaint was properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because its factual allegations did not support a cause of action and its legal conclusions did not state a viable claim.
3. Duplicative or repetitious in forma pauperis litigation may be dismissed as frivolous, and Collier's complaint was duplicative of claims previously presented in other courts and actions.
4. Leave to amend was properly denied because the action was frivolous or malicious in character and therefore lacked merit warranting amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Collier's motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted based on her financial affidavit.
2. Whether the complaint should be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for frivolousness and failure to state a claim.
3. Whether the complaint was duplicative of prior or pending litigation and therefore subject to dismissal as frivolous.
4. Whether appointment of counsel was appropriate after dismissal of the complaint.

Disposition

dismissed