(PS) Andreyev v. Trotsiouk

E.D. California

(PS) Andreyev v. Trotsiouk

DecidedAugust 20, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01394

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

(PS) Andreyev v. Trotsiouk, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GALINA V. ANDREYEV, Case No. 2:25-cv-1394-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS PREMATURE 14 MARCELLA TROTSIOUK, et al.,

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 4) 16 17 Plaintiff Galina V. Andreyev, who is proceeding pro se, has moved to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. (ECF No. 2.) After determining whether IFP is 19 appropriate and granting IFP, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 20 claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 21 or seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff's 22 Complaint, which was filed on May 16, 2025, has not yet been screened; thus, the Court 23 has not yet determined whether the Complaint states any cognizable claim(s). Therefore, 24 Defendants Marcella Trotsiouk and Igor Trotsiouk’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is 25 denied as premature. See Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2007 WL 2990151, *2 (D. Az. Oct. 11, 26 2007) (dismissing as premature a motion to dismiss that was filed before screening order 27 issued). The Court will screen the Complaint in due course, and if any cognizable claims 28 remain after screening, Defendant will have the opportunity to respond to the Complaint 1 | or if leave to amend is provided, respond to an Amended Complaint. Accordingly, 2 || Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is denied without prejudice. 3 IT |S SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 19, 2025 CC; s \C 6 GHI 500 KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 || 4, andr1394.25 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GALINA V. ANDREYEV, Case No. 2:25-cv-1394-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS PREMATURE 14 MARCELLA TROTSIOUK, et al.,

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 4) 16 17 Plaintiff Galina V. Andreyev, who is proceeding pro se, has moved to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. (ECF No. 2.) After determining whether IFP is 19 appropriate and granting IFP, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 20 claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 21 or seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff's 22 Complaint, which was filed on May 16, 2025, has not yet been screened; thus, the Court 23 has not yet determined whether the Complaint states any cognizable claim(s). Therefore, 24 Defendants Marcella Trotsiouk and Igor Trotsiouk’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is 25 denied as premature. See Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2007 WL 2990151, *2 (D. Az. Oct. 11, 26 2007) (dismissing as premature a motion to dismiss that was filed before screening order 27 issued). The Court will screen the Complaint in due course, and if any cognizable claims 28 remain after screening, Defendant will have the opportunity to respond to the Complaint 1 | or if leave to amend is provided, respond to an Amended Complaint. Accordingly, 2 || Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is denied without prejudice. 3 IT |S SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 19, 2025 CC; s \C 6 GHI 500 KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 || 4, andr1394.25 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Andreyev v. Trotsiouk, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-andreyev-v-trotsiouk-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack