Liesegang v. Young

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMarch 17, 2020
Docket3:19-cv-00685
StatusUnknown

This text of Liesegang v. Young (Liesegang v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liesegang v. Young, (D. Nev. 2020).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 CLAY LIESEGANG, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00685-MMD-WGC

4 Plaintiff, Order

5 v.

6 MIKE YOUNG, WHITNEY PEAK, 7 Defendants. 8

9 10 Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated in the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), and 11 housed at Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC). He filed an application for leave to proceed in 12 forma pauperis (IFP), pro se complaint and motion for appointment of counsel on November 12, 13 2019. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 2.) On December 13, 2019, the court issued an order noting that each of 14 Plaintiff's filings were fillable forms and at the top Plaintiff included the court name as the Sixth 15 Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Pershing, but the documents 16 were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The court gave Plaintiff 17 30 days to file a notice indicating whether he intended to file this action in the United States District 18 Court of the District of Nevada, or whether he intended to file it in the State court. If the former, 19 the court instructed Plaintiff to also file a financial certificate along with an IFP application on the 20 court's provided form. The court gave Plaintiff 30 days to submit these filings. (ECF No. 3.) 21 On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a new application to proceed IFP with the financial 22 certificate, complaint and motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 5, 5-1, and 5-2.) 23 /// 1 I. IFP APPLICATION 2 A person may be granted permission to proceed IFP if the person “submits an affidavit that 3 includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay 4 such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or

5 appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 6 The Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada provide: “Any person who is unable 7 to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed [IFP]. The 8 application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include a financial affidavit 9 disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” LSR 1-1. 10 “[T]he supporting affidavits [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some 11 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 12 (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be absolutely destitute to enjoy the 13 benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 14 An inmate submitting an application to proceed IFP must also “submit a certificate from

15 the institution certifying the amount of funds currently held in the applicant’s trust account at the 16 institution and the net deposits in the applicant’s account for the six months prior to the date of 17 submission of the application.” LSR 1-2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). If the inmate has been 18 at the institution for less than six months, “the certificate must show the account’s activity for this 19 shortened period.” LSR 1-2. 20 If a prisoner brings a civil action IFP, the prisoner is still required to pay the full amount 21 of the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The court will assess and collect (when funds exist) an 22 initial partial filing fee that is calculated as 20 percent of the greater of the average monthly 23 deposits or the average monthly balance for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing 1 of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A)-(B). After the initial partial filing fee is paid, the 2 prisoner is required to make monthly payments equal to 20 percent of the preceding month’s 3 income credited to the prisoner’s account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency that has custody of 4 the prisoner will forward payments from the prisoner’s account to the court clerk each time the

5 account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 6 Plaintiff’s certified account statement indicates that his average monthly balance for the 7 last six months was $1.50, and his average monthly deposits were $36.21. 8 Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is granted. Plaintiff is required to pay an initial partial 9 filing fee in the amount of $7.24 (20 percent of $36.21. Thereafter, whenever his prison account 10 exceeds $10, he must make monthly payments in the amount of 20 percent of the preceding 11 month’s income credited to his account until the $350 filing fee is paid. 12 II. SCREENING 13 A. Standard 14 Under the statute governing IFP proceedings, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time

15 if the court determines that-- (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal-- 16 (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) 17 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)-(iii). 19 In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, “[t]he court shall review, before docketing, if 20 feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in 21 which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 22 governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In conducting this review, the court “shall identify 23 cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-- 1 (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks 2 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 3 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is 4 provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and

5 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) track that language. As such, when reviewing the adequacy of a 6 complaint under these statutes, the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 7 12(b)(6). See e.g. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Review under Rule 8 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 9 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
335 U.S. 331 (Supreme Court, 1948)
Jenkins v. McKeithen
395 U.S. 411 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Hughes v. Rowe
449 U.S. 5 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Raymond Watison v. Mary Carter
668 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Irene Weldon v. United States
70 F.3d 1 (Second Circuit, 1995)
George v. Pacific-CSC Work Furlough
91 F.3d 1227 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Liesegang v. Young, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liesegang-v-young-nvd-2020.