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.

Moye v. Creighton

United States District Court, D. Oregon

February 1, 2018

BRANDON MOYE, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
BETH CREIGHTON, CREIGHTON & ROSE, and FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE, Defendants.

          Brandon Moye, Sr. Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge

         Pro Se Plaintiff Brandon Moye, Sr. brings this action against Defendants Beth Creighton, Creighton & Rose, and Fidelity National Title. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 25, 2018. Am. Compl., ECF 6. Because the Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's January 19, 2018, Opinion & Order, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

         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 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 1130-31.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Allegations

         Plaintiff filed his original complaint on December 13, 2017. In his complaint, he asserted that Defendant Creighton forged his signature and stole his money. Compl. 5, 9, ECF 1. Plaintiff specifically alleged claims of fraud, forgery, embezzlement, conspiracy, theft by deception, and malpractice. Id. at 4. He also requested that the 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.