United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
OPINION AND ORDER
JANICE M. STEWART, Magistrate Judge.
On April 24, 2014, the court granted the application by plaintiffs, Rebecca and Lawrence Roussel, to proceed in forma pauperis (docket #1) and dismissed their Complaint (docket #2) without prejudice but with leave to replead their claims against all defendants, except the State of Oregon which has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. To assist the Roussels, the court appointed several pro bono attorneys for the limited purpose of filing an amended complaint that alleged some viable claim for relief falling within this court's jurisdiction. All of these appointees requested termination for various reasons, the most recent due to unsuccessful attempts to reach the Roussels. On June 13, 2014, the court ordered the Roussels to file an amended complaint without appointed counsel.
Because the Roussels were being held in custody in Washington, they requested and were granted two stays (dockets #31 & # 37). They finally filed an Amended Complaint on November 17, 2014 (docket #39). However, the Amended Complaint does not cure the deficiencies in the initial Complaint. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and pro bono counsel will be appointed again for the limited purpose of assisting the Roussels in filing a second amended complaint.
A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time, including before service of process, if the court determines that:
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 USC § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); Jackson v. State of Ariz., 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir 1989).
A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Lopez v. Dep't of Health Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir 1991).
A court must liberally construe the allegations of a pro se plaintiff and "afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." Lopez, 939 F.2d at 883 (citation omitted). However, under FRCP 8(a)(2), all complaints must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). This standard "does not require detailed factual allegations, '" but does demand "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell ...