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.

Modrall v. Oregon State Bar

United States District Court, D. Oregon

March 17, 2017

ROBERT G. MODRALL, Plaintiff,
v.
OREGON STATE BAR and TROY J. WOOD, Defendants.

          Robert G. Modrall Plaintiff Pro Se.

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge.

         Pro se Plaintiff Robert Modrall brings this action against the Oregon State Bar (OSB) and Troy J. Wood. Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and he moves for appointment of counsel. While Plaintiff's IFP application lacks the requisite detail for this Court to determine whether Plaintiff qualifies, the Court grants the motion for the limited purpose of this initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court dismisses the Complaint with prejudice and denies Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel.

         STANDARDS

         A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time, including before service of process, if the court determines that:

         (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. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (sua sponte dismissals under section 1915 “spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering” complaints which are “frivolous, malicious, or repetitive”); 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). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Jackson v. State of Ariz., 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

         As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, however, courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A pro se complaint “‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). A pro se litigant will be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31.

         DISCUSSION

         I. ...


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.