United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
BRIAN G. STONE, Plaintiff,
TYLER VAN WORMER, Deputy Sheriff Clackamas County; CRAIG ROBERTS, Sheriff Clackamas County; Defendants.
G. Stone Plaintiff Pro Se
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 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
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