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.

Hamburg v. D.H.S. E. County

United States District Court, D. Oregon

April 2, 2018

JUSTINE HAMBURG, Plaintiff,
v.
D.H.S. E. COUNTY, SCOTT HARRIS, D.D.A, Defendants.

          Justine Hamburg Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION & ORDER

          HERNANDEZ, District Judge

         Pro se plaintiff Justine Hamburg brings this action against "D.H.S. E. County, " Scott Harris "D.D.A, " and possibly other Defendants. Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Because she has no appreciable income or assets, I grant the motion. However, for the reasons explained below, I dismiss the Complaint. Further, as explained below, I deny 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:

(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. § 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 either law or in fact." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Parties

         In filing her case, Plaintiff used a form designed for pro se litigants. Compl., ECF 2. In the caption of the Complaint, Plaintiff names "D.H.S. E. County"[1] and "Scott harris D.D.A." as Defendants. Compl. at p. 1. However, on the next page, she adds "David Udlock - D.HS." and "Mary Kane Child's lawyer" as Defendants. Id. at p. 2. In the part of the Complaint requiring her to name each individual Defendant and provide that Defendant's address and contact information, Plaintiff named only "D.H.S. E. County David Udlock D.H.S. worker" and "Scott Harris Deputy District Attorney" ...


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.