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.

James v. Oregon State Legislature

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

March 6, 2019

RYAN CHRISTOPHER JAMES, Plaintiff,
v.
OREGON STATE LEGISLATURE, Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          ACOSTA, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Ryan Christopher James brings this pro se claim against Defendant, the Oregon State Legislature ("OSL"). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application with the court to proceed in forma pauperis, which this court granted. (ECF Nos. 2, 5.) For the reasons stated below, the court recommends that the Complaint be dismissed.

         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)(B); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (sua sponte dismissals under § 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); Preciado v. Salas, No. l:13-cv-00390, 2014 WL 127710, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014) ("The Court is required to screen complaints brought by plaintiffs proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis")

         As the Ninth Circuit has instructed however, courts must "continue to construe pro se filings liberally." Hebbe v. Filler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Kpro 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)). Kpro 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. Plaintiffs Allegations

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs statement of claim is as follows:
I've had the IID for over 3 years now. I've completed all treatment and have stayed clean for over 3 years. I would like to know [i]f this device can be taken ...

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.