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.

Nesbit v. Tuck

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

November 15, 2019

KEVIN NESBIT, Plaintiff,
v.
JASON TUCK, DBA HAPPY VALLEY, OR CITY MANAGER, STEVE CAMPBELL DBA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE CITY OF HAPPY VALLEY, Defendants

          Kevin Nesbit Plaintiff Pro Se HERNANDEZ, District Judge

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A HERNANDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Kevin Nesbit, appearing pro se, brings this action against Jason Tuck and Steven Campbell. 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

         In his single-page Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on June 7, 2018, the Happy Valley Municipal Court mailed a court notification to Plaintiff at the wrong address. Compl. at p. 1, ECF 2. Because of the Court's error, Plaintiff missed his court date. Id. He alleges that as a result, he was found guilty of "Driving a Motor Vehicle While Using Mobile Electronic Device." Id. In order to prevent the suspension of his license, he paid $1, 015. Id. He alleges that he requested a "reconsideration from the courts" but it was denied. Id. He then requested help from Tuck, whom he identifies as the City Manager, as well as Campbell, whom he identifies as the City of Happy Valley's Director of Public Safety. Id. He contends that both Tuck and Campbell refused to help him and insisted that the "mailing system is perfect." Id. Plaintiff alleges that the facts show a "clear violation of Due Process, Fraud, and deliberate abuse of authority, Power and position." Id. He seeks damages in the amount of $1, 015 ...


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.