United States District Court, D. Oregon
Nesbit Plaintiff Pro Se
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Kevin Nesbit brings this action against the Oregon
Employment Department Collections Unit (OED). 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 and denies
Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel.
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;
(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).
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
best of this Court's understanding, Plaintiff's claim
is that employees of the OED have slandered and defamed him
with their “actions and unprofessional
misconduct.” Compl., ECF 1. The complaint suggests that
OED employees accused Plaintiff of improperly collecting
unemployment benefits and OED has ...