Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington sua sponte reviewed James Crary’s complaint under the in forma pauperis screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that the complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim, and that amendment would be futile. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Holdings
- The complaint was properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Leave to amend was properly denied because amendment would be futile in light of the frivolous nature of the complaint.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal during mandatory in forma pauperis screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for frivolousness and failure to state a claim.
- Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the complaint.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)(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)
- Lucas v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…