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.

Murphy v. City of Missoula

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

November 21, 2018

EDWIN EDDIE RALPH MURPHY, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MISSOULA, COUNTY OF MISSOULA, and STATE OF MONTANA, Defendants.

          ORDER

          JEREMIAH C. LYNCH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff Edwin Murphy, proceeding pro se, filed an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Murphy 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 Murphy's application is GRANTED. This action may proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, and the Clerk of Court is directed to file Murphy'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 Murphy'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. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138, 1142 (9th Cir. 2005).

         II. Background

         Murphy filed a complaint which provides no factual information explaining his claims. Instead, he states only that since he moved here in October, 2009, his due process rights and his rights against cruel and unusual punishment under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, respectively, have been violated. But his allegations do not describe any events, or the conduct of any individuals that occurred which resulted in those alleged violations. He further indicates he is disabled, and he states “I am without access to ADA or any civil rights that require access to justice.” (Doc. 2 at 6 of 8.) But Murphy does not set forth any supporting facts describing how his access rights have been hindered, or who impeded those rights. He ...


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.