United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.
KATHLEEN L. DESOTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18, 2019, Plaintiff Ray moved to proceed in forma pauperis
with this action alleging violation of federal laws
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of physical or mental
disability. See Compl. (Doc. 2) at 6.
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
motion adequately demonstrates that she is unable to pay
costs that may be associated with this action. The $400.00
filing fee will be waived.
proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court must review her
complaint to determine whether it fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted. See
also self-represented. "A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts must briefly
explain deficiencies that may be cured by amendment, see
Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012), but
if a claim cannot be cured by amendment, "the court
shall dismiss" it, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (emphasis
contends that she made good-faith attempts to pay her rent
but was evicted anyway. She submits exhibits, see
Compl. Exs. (Doc. 2-2 at 1-28), showing that she paid $325.00
to a payee that appears to include Defendant Russel on
February 5, March 5, April 4, and June 4, 2019. See
Credit Union Statements (Doc. 2-2 at 3, 4, 5, 28).
Ray's exhibits also show that, on April 29, 2019, the
Missoula County Justice Court issued a summons requiring her
to answer a complaint that had been filed against her.
See Summons (Doc. 2-2 at 14). The corresponding
complaint, bearing No. CV-2019-1202, alleged that, on March
20, 2019, Ray received seven days' notice that she must
pay back rent in the amount of $1, 175.00, plus $90.00 in
late fees, or vacate the premises and remove her mobile home.
See Complaint for Possession, Seven-Day Notice (Doc.
2-2 at 15-17).
ordered to answer the complaint within ten days of the date
of the summons, that is, on or before May 13, 2019. She did
not timely respond. On May 17, 2019, Ray's default was
entered, and the Justice of the Peace entered an order
granting possession and a writ of assistance authorizing
eviction. See Order (Doc. 2-2 at 6). Ray appeared
twice thereafter in the Justice Court, on May 24 and May 30,
2019, see Order (Doc. 2-2 at 6-7); Answer (Doc. 2-2
at 18); Mot. to Stop Eviction (Doc. 2-2 at 21), but it was
better or worse, all litigation comes to an end, including
eviction actions. Ray does not allege that she did not
receive notice or did not have an opportunity to be heard or
to dispute the amount owed. Her exhibits include a statement
that she "thought if I didn't do anything the
problem would just go away I was served my eviction papers at
the end of April, and now it is almost the end of May."
Address to Justice Beal (Doc. 2-2 at 19-20). The court
documents she submits appear to be unremarkable records of
the way an eviction action proceeds. The action concluded
weeks before Ray filed this action and, at any rate, a
federal court has no power to hear an appeal or to relitigate
a civil action filed and concluded in state court. Even
assuming Ray has a disability and is entitled to protections
afforded by various federal laws, see Soc. Security
Admin. Documents (Doc. 2-2 at 8-9, 11-13, 24-27), no federal
law requires her landlord to carry her debt, and no federal
law prevents her landlord's attorney from protecting his
an opportunity to contest her eviction. The time for doing so
came and went before she filed this action. The facts she
alleges, and the facts the Court can gather from her
exhibits, do not support an inference that the Defendants
were at fault for Ray's failure to timely respond to the
complaint for possession. Ray's complaint ...