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.

Stone v. Wormer

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

February 5, 2019

BRIAN G. STONE, Plaintiff,
v.
TYLER VAN WORMER, Deputy Sheriff Clackamas County; CRAIG ROBERTS, Sheriff Clackamas County; Defendants.

          Brian G. Stone Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pro se Plaintiff Brian Stone brings this action against Tyler Van Wormer, Deputy Sheriff of Clackamas County; and Craig Roberts, Sheriff of Clackamas County. Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Because he has no appreciable income or assets, the Court grants the motion. However, the Court dismisses the complaint.

         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. Claims

         Plaintiff names Clackamas County Deputy Sheriff Tyler Van Wormer and Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts as Defendants. Compl. 1. The entirety of Plaintiff's “statement of claim” is: “My civil rights were violated by racial profiling involving a stop by deputy Van Wormer ...


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.