Scott II v. US Department of Agriculture

E.D. Arkansas

Scott II v. US Department of Agriculture

DecidedMay 31, 2022

Docket4:22-cv-00475

StatusUnknown

This text of Scott II v. US Department of Agriculture (Scott II v. US Department of Agriculture) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott II v. US Department of Agriculture, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION GENE EDWARD SCOTT II PLAINTIFF V. 4:22CV00475 JM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Doris Washington, Executive Director DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Gene Edward Scott II brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asking to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1 & 2). The Eighth Circuit has instructed that the decision of whether a complaint is frivolous or malicious precedes the decision of whether to grant in forma pauperis status and whether to order service of process. See Carney v. Houston, 33 F.3d 893, 895 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Gentile v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 986 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir. 1993). “If the complaint is frivolous or malicious, the district court should dismiss it out of hand.” /d. A complaint if frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in either law of fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In this case, Mr. Scott, a resident of Arizona, seeks $67 billion for himself and $72 million for the City of Holly Grove, to return soybean farming to the City. (Doc. 2 at 4-5). Mr. Scott has failed to state a claim that has any basis in law or in fact. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). The Court finds that allowing Mr. Scott to amend his complaint would be futile. Mr. Scott’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED. Mr. Scott’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of May, 2022. eh.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION GENE EDWARD SCOTT II PLAINTIFF V. 4:22CV00475 JM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Doris Washington, Executive Director DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Gene Edward Scott II brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asking to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1 & 2). The Eighth Circuit has instructed that the decision of whether a complaint is frivolous or malicious precedes the decision of whether to grant in forma pauperis status and whether to order service of process. See Carney v. Houston, 33 F.3d 893, 895 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Gentile v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 986 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir. 1993). “If the complaint is frivolous or malicious, the district court should dismiss it out of hand.” /d. A complaint if frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in either law of fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In this case, Mr. Scott, a resident of Arizona, seeks $67 billion for himself and $72 million for the City of Holly Grove, to return soybean farming to the City. (Doc. 2 at 4-5). Mr. Scott has failed to state a claim that has any basis in law or in fact. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). The Court finds that allowing Mr. Scott to amend his complaint would be futile. Mr. Scott’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED. Mr. Scott’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of May, 2022. eh.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Scott II v. US Department of Agriculture, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-ii-v-us-department-of-agriculture-ared-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack