United States District Court, D. Oregon
Brandon Moye, Sr., Plaintiff Pro Se.
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Brandon Moye, Sr. brings this action against
Defendants Beth Creighton, Creighton & Rose, and Fidelity
National Title. Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma
pauperis. Because he has no appreciable income or
assets, the Court grants the motion. However, for the reasons
explained below, the Court dismisses the Complaint.
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 filed “‘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