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.

Poulson v. Bullock

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

November 7, 2017

KERMIT TY POULSON, Plaintiff,
v.
GOVERNOR STEVE BULLOCK, TIM FOX, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER, AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          Jeremiah C. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff Kermit Poulson, appearing pro se, filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Poulson submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Because it appears he lacks sufficient funds to prosecute this action IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Poulson's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. This action may proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, and the Clerk of Court is directed to file Poulson's lodged Complaint as of the filing date of his request to proceed in forma pauperis.

         The federal statute under which leave to proceed in forma pauperis is permitted - 28 U.S.C. § 1915 - also requires the Court to conduct a preliminary screening of the allegations set forth in the litigant's pleading. The applicable provisions of section 1915(e)(2) state as follows:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal-
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         The Court will review Poulson's pleading to consider whether any of Poulson's claims can survive dismissal under the provisions of section 1915(e)(2), or any other provision of law. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138, 1142 (9th Cir. 2005).

         II. Background

         Invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Poulson commenced this action on September 28, 2017, alleging the numerous Defendants violated various of his federal constitutional rights - he presumably seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Poulson also advances a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Finally, he asserts he was subjected to libel and slander by some of the Defendants, thus invoking supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over these claims which are grounded in Montana law.

         Review of the complaint reflects that Poulson's claims have their genesis in two legal proceedings prosecuted against him in the Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. The first was a civil proceeding, Cause No. DN-09-053, which culminated in the termination of Poulson's parental rights with respect to minor child M.M.F. See, In re M.M.F., 272 P.3d 125 (Table) (Mont. 2011).[1] The second was a criminal proceeding which culminated in Poulson entering a guilty plea on August 9, 2012, to felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs in Cause No. DC 11-014A. See, State of Montana v. Poulson, 363 P.3d 1146 (Table) (Mont. 2015).[2] Poulson is not currently in custody on that conviction.

         The Court reviews Poulson's claims in the context of the referenced proceedings.

         III. ...


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.