Tucker v. Johnson

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Rodney Tucker’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed his complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, finding that the allegations were unclear and did not plausibly identify a claim against the defendant. The court granted leave to amend by November 3, 2025.

Holdings

1. Tucker qualified to proceed in forma pauperis because his low income and lack of available assets showed that he could not satisfy the filing fee, even though the court questioned the completeness or plausibility of his reported expenses.
2. A district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.
3. Tucker failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction because his complaint did not identify a federal cause of action, alleged that the defendant worked for a county rather than the federal government, and appeared to allege that both parties were California citizens, defeating complete diversity.
4. The complaint failed to state a plausible claim because it did not clearly identify what claim Tucker was asserting or allege facts showing that Johnson committed a tort or other actionable wrong.
5. Dismissal without leave to amend was not warranted because the jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies were not necessarily incurable; Tucker was therefore granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Tucker qualified to proceed in forma pauperis based on his financial circumstances.
2. Whether the complaint adequately established federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under the pleading standards applicable to in forma pauperis screening.
4. Whether dismissal should be without prejudice and with leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed