James Shirley v. University of Idaho
This text of 800 F.3d 1177 (James Shirley v. University of Idaho) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
ORDER
On December 18, 2014, the district court denied appellant’s motion to amend his complaint a second time and dismissed appellant’s claims with prejudice. The district court based the dismissal on its con[1194]*1194elusion that the proposed second amended complaint contained allegations that were irreconcilably contradictory to allegations made in the original complaint and first amended complaint.
We summarily reverse, because the allegations in the proposed second amended complaint cited by the district court were not so patently inconsistent with appellant’s previous allegations as to warrant a screening dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (district court shall screen and dismiss an action filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief’).
On remand, the district court shall file the proposed second amended complaint and order service on defendants.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
800 F.3d 1177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-shirley-v-university-of-idaho-ca9-2015.