Filed February 27, 2014
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (stating that a complaint is frivolous within the meaning of Section 1915 where it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”). Plaintiff’s action is thus “clearly baseless,” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992), and, accordingly, should be dismissed pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B). Washington v. Harrington, 2013 WL 6492448, *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2013) (affirming Section 1915 dismissal, stating that even “though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief”). Case3:13-cv-03470-JST Document22 Filed02/27/14 Page12 of
Filed April 11, 2017
Case 2:16-cv-02125-CJB-JCW Document 39-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 12 12 V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendants are entitled o dismissal of plaintiff’s suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) because it is frivolous in that it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the alternative, the movant is entitled to dismissal of plaintiff’s federal and state claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted.
Filed December 8, 2016
Case No. SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6), 12(e) and 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) Date: January 23, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 10C Honorable James V. Selna, U.S.D.J. This Court having considered Defendant LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff STEVANUS EDWARD’S Complaint, GRANTS said motion and hereby orders Plaintiff STEVANUS EDWARD’S Complaint dismissed as against Defendant LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS, with prejudice.
Filed February 26, 2008
In addition, a prisoner must attach a statement certified by the appropriate institutional officer showing all receipts, expenditures, and balances during the last six months in your institutional accounts.” [D.E. 127 (emphasis added)] Silvious did not attach the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Rule 24 and the face of the application. He does not provide a statement of all assets in his possession, a statement of the nature of his appeal, or his belief that he is entitled to redress.
Filed May 8, 2020
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). IV. CONCLUSION The Court will dismiss the following claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii): (1) any claims made on behalf of any other individuals besides Wyatt and McNeil; (2) all claims for injunctive relief; (3) all claims against the Department of Probation and Parole; (4) all claims against Garner and Wetzel in their official capacities; and (5) all claims based on grievances. The Court will dismiss these claims with prejudice because any attempt at amendment would be futile.
Filed March 30, 2017
All “official capacity” claims for monetary reli f, therefore, may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915; 1915A and/or 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c) because they are frivolous and seek relief from a defendant who is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.
Filed October 11, 2016
The action frivolous and malicious, and should be dismissed. Case 2:16-cv-08740-LMA-JVM Document 11-1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 6 6 WHEREFORE, for the reasons assigned above, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado respectfully prays that the above-captioned matter be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Respectfully submitted, KENNETH ALLEN POLITE, JR.
Filed April 22, 2015
6. Here, the plaintiff fails to meet the criteria for proceeding with IFP status as set forth in 28 USCS § 1915 and Lee as the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he lacks the financial means to pursue an appeal as required by 28 USCS § 1915 (a)(2). 7.
Filed February 4, 2015
28 U.S.C. § 1914. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Motion to Require Compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) was served by mail upon the following: Frederick Banks Plaintiff, pro se DOC # 120759 Allegheny County Jail 950 Second Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Frederick Banks Plaintiff, pro se P.O. Box 295 Pittsburgh, PA 152302 Date: February 4, 2015 /s/ Jennifer R. Andrade Jennifer R. Andrade Assistant U.S. Attorney 2 The address plaintiff provided in connection with his State Court filings conflicts with that which is currently of record in Criminal Action No. 04-176. As such, the address on the docket for Criminal Action No. 04- 176 is included for purposes of service.
Filed January 10, 2013
The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go for pretrial supervision. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962).