United States District Court, D. Montana, Butte Division
Jeremiah C. Lynch United States Magistrate Judge
Holli Telford, proceeding pro se, filed an application
requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Teleford
submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). Because it appears she lacks
sufficient funds to prosecute this action IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Telford's application is
GRANTED. This action may proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, and the Clerk of Court is
directed to file Telford's lodged complaint as of the
filing date of her 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:
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-
the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
the action or appeal-
is frivolous or malicious;
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Court will review Telford'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).
filed a complaint which provides very limited factual
information. She references a real estate transaction in
which she was involved in 2006, and two different criminal
prosecutions against her in 2006 and 2007 accusing her of
allegedly forging notary signatures apparently during the
course of the real estate transaction. And she references
numerous laws allegedly violated including five different
federal laws, and seven different causes of action asserted
under Montana common law. But Telford's allegations do
not describe specific acts or omissions of any specific
Defendant that she believes directly violated any of the laws
she lists in her complaint. Thus, her pleading fails to
allege any specific claim for relief against any Defendant
identified in her pleading.
Telford is proceeding pro se the Court must construe her
pleading liberally, and the pleading is held “to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers[.]” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). See also Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). Although the Court has
authority to dismiss a defective pleading pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e)(2),
a district court should grant leave to amend even if no
request to amend the pleading was made, unless it
determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by
the allegation of other facts.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th
Cir. 2000) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d
494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)).
with liberal construction of Telford's allegations, the
Court concludes her allegations fail to expressly state any
claim for relief. As presently pled, Telford's
allegations do not ...