United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable Eileen S. Willett, United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs' Rudy and Julia
Castaneda's Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) and Complaint (Doc.
1). Plaintiffs have agreed to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction
(Docs. 8, 9).
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Doc. 2)
district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in
forma pauperis upon completion of a proper affidavit of
indigence. See 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a). In their
Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Doc. 2), Plaintiffs have declared under
penalty of perjury that they are unable to pay the filing fee
and other costs associated with this case. Plaintiffs present
financial information to support their application. Given
Plaintiffs' income and absence of significant assets,
Plaintiffs have met their burden of proof. The Court finds
the Plaintiffs to be indigent, and their Application (Doc. 2)
will be granted.
Screening In Forma Pauperis Complaint (Doc. 1)
respect to in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court shall
dismiss such action at any time if it 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 Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 fnt. 7 (9th Cir. 2000)
(stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “applies to all
in forma pauperis complaints”). The Court must dismiss
an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim
or if it is frivolous or malicious. Lopez, 203 F.3d
at 1127 (“It is also clear that section 1915(e) not
only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in
forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a
claim.”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1226-27 (9th Cir. 1984). A complaint may be dismissed where
it lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks sufficient facts
alleged under a cognizable legal theory, or contains
allegations disclosing some absolute defense or bar to
recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept.,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Weisbuch v. County of
L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783, n. 1 (9th Cir. 1997).
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
instructed, courts must “continue to construe pro se
filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro
se litigant] ‘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)).
Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the
allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to
an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the
action. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127-29. “It is
also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires
a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at