The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Houston United States District Judge
ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SAUL BRIGNONI, ) PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SGT. HARTMAN, ) [DOC. NO. 2] (2) DISMISSING ACTION SUA SPONTE FOR FAILING TO STATE) A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED PURSUANT ) TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1)
On October 7, 2010, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner appearing pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. No. 2.
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). SeeAndrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Doc. No. 2.
Plaintiff is currently unemployed and receives limited financial assistance from his father. He maintains that he owns a 1985 Buick and a house inherited from his mother, which Plaintiff believes is valued at $480,000 to $500,000. His father pays his property taxes, assessments and insurance. Plaintiff submits that he has received $4,633.70 in the past twelve months: $4,358.70 from his father, $130 from his bank for opening a new account and paying three online bills, and $140 for serving as a poll worker. Additionally, Plaintiff submits he has two bank accounts amounting to $20.96 available in cash. Based upon the information provided, this Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that he is unable to pay the fees required to commence his suit. Therefore, the Court GRANTSPlaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2].
B.SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28U.S.C.§1915(e)(2)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP. Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
"[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2) "parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). In addition, the Court's duty to liberally construe a pro se's pleadings, seeKarim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th ...