Jack Sullivan v. Sergio Jimenez and Carmen Pacheco

Sullivan v. Jimenez · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division · January 30, 2026 · No. 3:26-CV-00070-KDB-DCK

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina conditionally granted Jack Sullivan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of initial review. The court dismissed his complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because its bare allegations that defendants delayed proceedings in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 failed to state a cognizable federal claim or establish jurisdiction.

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division
Writing for the Court
Kenneth D. Bell
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division
Decision date
January 30, 2026
Docket number
3:26-CV-00070-KDB-DCK
Procedural posture
Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis. After conditionally granting the motion for the limited purpose of initial review, the district court screened the pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed it without prejudice.
Standard of review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), an IFP complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Frivolity review asks whether the complaint rests on an indisputably meritless legal theory or clearly baseless factual contentions, and a pro se complaint is construed liberally but must still allege facts supporting a cognizable federal claim.
Precedential value
Unpublished district court memorandum and order; precedential status is not established in the source.
Parties
Jack Sullivan v. Sergio Jimenez, Carmen Pacheco
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

section 1983civil rightssubject matter jurisdictionpleadingscivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rightsfederal courts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis based on his financial circumstances.
  2. Whether the complaint should be dismissed during mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a cognizable federal claim or because it was founded on insufficient factual allegations.

Holdings

  1. The court conditionally granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis for the limited purpose of conducting initial review.
  2. The complaint failed to state a cognizable federal claim because the allegation that defendants delayed unspecified proceedings, without facts explaining what occurred or how defendants caused the delay, was insufficient.
  3. The complaint was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and did not allege a claim within the court's jurisdiction.

Key quotations

Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”
Most simply put, none of the allegations in Sullivan’s bare bones Complaint state a cognizable federal claim or any claim over which this Court has jurisdiction.

Factual background

Sullivan alleged that the defendants violated his civil rights and quoted 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted only that the defendants "delayed the proceedings," without identifying the proceedings, explaining how they were delayed, or alleging other relevant facts. The court concluded that these bare allegations did not state a cognizable federal claim or any claim over which the court had jurisdiction.

Procedural history

Sullivan filed a civil-rights complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court found that he lacked sufficient assets to pay the filing fee, conditionally granted IFP status for initial review, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it failed to allege facts stating a cognizable federal claim or any claim within the court's jurisdiction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…