Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lequieu v. United States Post Office - Bonners Ferry

United States District Court, D. Idaho

August 25, 2017

SANDRA DAWN LEQUIEU, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE - BONNERS FERRY, TERESA SKEEN, and MIKE FELLER, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          David C. Nye, U.S. States District Court Judge

         The 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 summarily dismissed.

         I. In Forma Pauperis Request

         A. Standard

         Pursuant 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. § 1915(a)(1).

         In 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.

         The 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 quotation omitted).

         B. Discussion

         Plaintiff 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.

         II. Review of Complaint

         A. Standard

         Once a 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).

         Because 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).

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.