United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION & ORDER
A. Hernandez, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Susan Marcos-Chavela brings this action against
Defendants LSDAS, Seattle University Law School, Wasby
University Law School, and George Washington University.
Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis .
Because Plaintiff has minimal income and assets, the Court
grants the motion. However, for the reasons explained below,
the Court dismisses the Complaint  with prejudice.
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
appears to believe that a Jewish conspiracy is preventing her
from entering law school. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that she
has experienced maltreatment and “[discrimination as a
Roman Catholic” in applying to law schools, which she
emphasizes have predominantly Jewish faculty. Compl. 4.
Plaintiff alleges that there is a “Jew test” that
provides special testing conditions for Jewish test-takers.
Compl. 3. She asserts that this discrimination in admissions
is based on religion and a “Jewish Agenda v.
gentiles.” Compl. 3. She further alleges that
“[o]ver 300 Jewish students admitted to law schools
with [her] credentials - [she] was denied.” Compl. at
2. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of ten million dollars
in damages, “No Jew Test execution, ” “No
Jews in authority, ” “Roman Catholic Church,
” “Roman Catholic School, ” and
“Roman Catholic Ministries.” Compl. 4. In her
civil cover sheet, Plaintiff further describes her cause as
“Organized ‘Rigged' Testing by Jewish
Yeshivat Israel to purposely support with fraud Jewish law
students with discrimination.” Compl. Att. 1, ECF 1-1.
Court finds that these allegations do not give rise to a
claim upon which relief can be granted and that this action
is frivolous. Because Plaintiffs allegations here are so