Hobbs v. Santiago

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 27, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00787
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Richard Paul Hobbs, No. CV-20-00787-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Michael Santiago, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 16 2). As far as the Court case ascertain from Plaintiff’s handwritten and near illegible filing, 17 Plaintiff is indigent. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 18 forma pauperis. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234–36 (9th Cir. 2015). With 19 respect to in forma pauperis complaints, 20 Congress provided…that a district court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the "allegation of poverty is untrue" or that the 21 "action or appeal" is "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 22 immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 23 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)("section 24 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints"). "It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in 25 forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim." Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it 26 is frivolous or malicious.

27 "[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. 28 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Furthermore, "a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the 1 irrational. or wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially recognized 2 (1992) "A case 1s malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm another." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2 (D. Ariz. 2005). 4 In this case, the Court cannot perform its required screening function because the handwritten complaint (Doc. 1) is illegible. Local Rule Civil 7.1(b)(1) requires all filings 6 to be typed. The handwritten complaint in this case violates this Rule. Accordingly, to comply with the Local Rules, and to allow the Court to perform its 8 required screening function, the Court will strike the illegible complaint with leave to refile. Based on the foregoing, 10 IT IS ORDERED granting the application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2); however, the Clerk of the Court shall not issue summons unless and until Plaintiff complies 12 with this Order. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (Doc. 1) is stricken. Plaintiff has M4 21 days to file a typewritten amended complaint after which the Court will undertake to 15 screen the amended complaint as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If Plaintiff fails 16 to file an amended complaint as required by this Order within 21 days, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case, without prejudice. 18 Dated this 27th day of April, 2020. 19 20

22 James A. Teilborg 73 Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

_2-