1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID FALLON,
Plaintiff,
CIV S-06-1222 GEB KJM PS
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER
/
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief under and has
requested authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was
referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).
Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is
unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in
forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if
the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).
/////
Case 2:06-cv-01222-GEB-KJM Document 3 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
(PS) Fallon v. United States Government
Doc. 3
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28
(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
490 U.S. at 327.
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set
of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &
Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957));