Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants David Alberts’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court finds that the complaint passes screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), directs issuance of summonses, and orders the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The order also sets requirements for defendants’ responses and the plaintiff’s service of subsequent filings.
Holdings
- Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted because his complete application established the requisite level of financial need.
- The complaint passed statutory screening and was not dismissed, without prejudice to Defendants' ability to raise arguments in a motion to dismiss.
- Because Plaintiff was authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint and summonses on the named defendants.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff established sufficient financial need to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
- Whether the complaint was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or otherwise required dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Whether the court should direct the Clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and effect service on the defendants on Plaintiff's behalf.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…