Hale v. City of Portland et al, No. 3:2021cv01219 - Document 10 (D. Or. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed IFP 5 . Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, curing deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of this Opinion & Order. The Clerk shall not issue a summons without direction from the Court. Signed on 9/29/2021 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez.(Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 9/29/2021.) (jp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hale v. City of Portland et al Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON , BRIAN HALE No. 3:21-cv-01219-HZ Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER v. CITY of PORTLAND and STATE of OREGON Defendants. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Pro se Plaintiff Brian Hale brings this action against the City of Portland and the State of Oregon. Defendants have not yet been served with process. Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis [5]. Because Plaintiff has minimal income and assets, the Court grants the motion. However, for the reasons explained below, the Court dismisses the Complaint [1] without prejudice. 1 – OPINION & ORDER Dockets.Justia.com STANDARDS A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time, including before service of process, if the court determines that: (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); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (sua sponte dismissals under section 1915 “spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering” complaints which are “frivolous, malicious, or repetitive”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by inmates). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Jackson v. State of Ariz., 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). A complaint fails to state a claim when it does not contain sufficient factual matter which, when accepted as true, gives rise to a plausible inference that defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 556–57 (2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, however, courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A pro se complaint “‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). A pro se litigant will be given leave to 2 – OPINION & ORDER amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130–31. DISCUSSION Plaintiff asserts his claim under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff alleges that he has been a victim of fraud and discrimination. Compl., ECF 1. Plaintiff’s claims arise from receiving a low credit score from three credit reporting agencies. He also alleges discrimination by a private car dealer when he attempted to finance the purchase of a new car. Plaintiff’s complaint makes no allegations describing any actions by Defendants that caused Plaintiff harm or violated his rights. Because the Court is unable to discern a claim against the Defendants upon which relief can be granted, the Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed IFP [5]. Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, curing deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of this Opinion & Order. The Clerk shall not issue a summons without direction from the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED:_______________________. September 29, 2021 ______________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge 3 – OPINION & ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
