Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leaper v. JP Morgan Chase

United States District Court, D. Oregon

January 21, 2015

JANINE LEAPER, Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE, ROUTH CRABTREE OLSEN aka RCO LEGAL PS, RCO LEGAL PC, MARTIN BI SCHOFF LANGL EY HOFFMAN, DOES 1-5, Defendants.

Janine Leaper, Portland, Oregon, Plaintiff Pro Se.

OPINION & ORDER

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff Janine Leaper brings this action against JP Morgan Chase and other Defendants. Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. At this point, I provisionally grant the motion and dismiss the Complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she is ordered to simultaneously file an amended in forma pauperis application addressing when exactly she received the $30, 000 listed in response to Question 4f.

STANDARDS

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 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by inmates).

DISCUSSION

I. Allegations

Plaintiff brings this action against four named Defendants: JP Morgan Chase, Routh Crabtree Olsen aka RCO Legal PS, RCO Legal PC, and Martin Bischoff Langley Hoffman. Compl. at 1. She also names "Does 1-5" as Defendants. She fails to further identify any party as provided for in Section I of the Complaint other than herself and JP Morgan Chase, for whom she fails to include any information other than the name. Id. at 1-2. She states that federal jurisdiction is based on federal question and identifies three federal statutes: "FDCPA, " "FCRA, " and "RESPA." Id. at 2-3. She also lists "breach of contract" and "tortuous [sic] interference" as other bases for federal jurisdiction. Id. at 3. I construe these as supplemental state claim she intends to bring as they are not a federal constitutional, statutory, or treaty right providing a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Although she did not allege diversity jurisdiction as a basis for federal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.