Buy This Entire Record For
Strange v. Partners In Home Care, Inc.
United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
September 7, 2018
CLINTON STRANGE, Plaintiff,
PARTNERS IN HOME CARE, INC., a Montana domestic non-profit corporation; EMAILMEFORM, LLC, a California for profit limited liability company; and MICHAEL QUAN, in his role as CEO of EMAILMEFORM, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER, AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
JEREMIAH C. LYNCH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Clinton Strange, appearing pro se, filed a pleading advancing
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
against the above-named Defendants. Strange also moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). He has submitted an application and affidavit which
provide details about his financial condition.
Court finds Strange's application and affidavit make the
showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to allow him to
proceed in forma pauperis. Because it appears he lacks
sufficient funds to prosecute this action IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Strange'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 Strange's lodged Complaint as of the
filing date of his request to proceed in forma pauperis.
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;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Court will review Strange's pleading to consider whether
this action can survive dismissal under the provisions of
section 1915(e)(2), or any other provision of law. See
Huftile v. ...