United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye, U.S. States District Court Judge
Court has before it pro se Plaintiff Sandra Lequieu's
complaint and in forma pauperis request, which the
Clerk of Court conditionally filed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, this Court must review Lequieu's in
forma pauperis complaint to determine whether it may be
In Forma Pauperis Request
to federal statute, “any court of the United States may
authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any
suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, ... without
prepayment of fees or security therefor.” 28 U.S.C.
order to qualify for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status, Plaintiff must submit an
affidavit that includes a statement of all assets she
possesses and that she is unable to pay the fee required.
affidavit is sufficient if it states that the plaintiff,
because of her poverty, cannot “pay or give security
for the costs” and still be able to provide for herself
and dependants “with necessities of life.”
Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Numours & Co., 335 U.S.
331, 339 (1948). The affidavit must “state the facts as
to affiant's poverty with some particularity,
definiteness and certainty.” United States v.
McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal
has stated under penalty of perjury that she “cannot
prepay the filing fee in [her] case” as required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See Application, p. 5
(Dkt. 1). Plaintiff's application indicates that her only
monthly income is from disability, that she has no money in
the bank, some minor debt obligations, and little to no
assets. (Id. at 2-4). The Court finds that Plaintiff
qualifies for IFP status.
Review of Complaint
complaint has been conditionally filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the Court may conduct an initial review of the
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The
Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it if it:
(1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii).
Lequieu is proceeding pro se, the complaint must be liberally
construed, and Lequieu must be given the benefit of any
doubt. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
Cir. 2000). Additionally, if the complaint can be saved by
amendment, Lequieu should be notified of the deficiencies and
provided an opportunity to amend. See Jackson v.
Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003). A dismissal
without leave to amend is improper unless it is beyond doubt
that the complaint “could not be saved by any
amendment.” Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d
728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009).