United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
AIKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jeanne Camarena-Revis seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis ("IFP") in this action. (Doc. 2) For
the reasons set forth below, the Amended Complaint (doc. 17)
is DISMISSED with leave to amend, plaintiffs IFP petition
(doc. 2) and Motion for Protective Order (doc. 6) are DENIED
with leave to refile, and plaintiffs Motion for Appointment
of Pro Bono Counsel (doc. 10) is DENIED.
was rear-ended by defendant Donna Stoneberg on February 22,
2017, Plaintiff alleges that before the accident, she did not
have neck pain or any known degenerative diseases. As a
result of the accident, she requires continuing medical care
and suffers from emotional distress. After the accident,
plaintiff was diagnosed with whiplash, evaluated or treated
by a psychiatrist, and examined by a radiologist. Now,
plaintiff has six unpaid medical bills.
filed a claim for those medical bills with defendant, Farmers
Insurance ("Farmers"), which insures Stoneberg.
Jodi Karrick, a claim adjuster for Farmers, was assigned to
November 5, 2018, Karrick emailed plaintiff stating that
Farmers would likely not pay for plaintiffs ongoing medical
treatment. In a letter dated April 26, 2019, Karrick informed
plaintiff that Famers had reviewed plaintiffs medical records
and believed that her injuries were degenerative in nature,
rather than a result of the accident. Nevertheless, the
letter stated that Farmers was willing to extend a settlement
offer of $6, 000 as a compromise. Amend. Compl. Ex I.
initially field an action against Farmers on January 23,
2019, along with an IPF petition. She alleged that Farmers
was liable for the payment of her medical bills. On March 28,
2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court dismissed
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
Court also ordered a limited term appointment of pro bono
counsel, not to exceed three hours in length, for the purpose
of reviewing the case with plaintiff and discussing options
for how to proceed.
meeting with pro bono counsel, plaintiff filed her Amended
Complaint. In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff added
defendants Stoneberg and Karrick and included a three-page
letter explaining plaintiffs claims, medical information from
an examining radiologist, a letter from Farmers, and an email
thread with Karrick.
alleges that Stoneberg, Karrick, and Farmers are liable for
the payment of her medical bills. She alleges that her pain
is not degenerative in nature and is a result of the accident
with Stoneberg. Plaintiff seeks $775, 000 in damages. Am.
Compl. at 4.
plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, district courts have the
power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen
complaints even before service of the complaint on defendants
and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim.
Courts apply the same standard under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v.
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive
a motion to dismiss under the federal pleading standards, the
complaint must include a short and plain statement of the
claim and "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court is not required to
accept legal conclusions, unsupported by alleged facts, as
se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than
pleadings by attorneys. Haines u. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972). That is, the court should construe
pleadings by pro se plaintiffs liberally and afford
the plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v.
Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th
Cir. 1988). Additionally, a pro se litigant is
entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and
the opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's
deficiencies cannot he cured by amendment. Id.