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.

Moye v. Burnside Firs, LLC

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

August 31, 2019

BRANDON MOYE, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
BURNSIDE FIRS, LLC, Defendant.

          OPINION & ORDER

          Marco A Hernandez United States District Judge.

         Pro se plaintiff Brandon Moye brings this action against Defendant Burnside Firs, LLC. Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Because he has no appreciable income or assets, I grant the motion. However, for the reasons explained below, I dismiss 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:

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(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 either in law or in fact." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Allegations

         Plaintiff brings a claim for what he alleges is unconstitutional gerrymandering under the Fourteenth Amendment. Compl. § IIA (explaining asserted basis for federal question jurisdiction), ECF 2. He contends that he was improperly evicted from a residence which he believes was in Portland and carried a Portland address but which Defendant, presumably Plaintiff's landlord, asserted was actually in Gresham. Id., ยง III. According to Plaintiff, Defendant's insistence that the residence was in Gresham deprived Plaintiff of ...


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.