The statute provides, in pertinent part: “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that . . . 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)(B).
Nails filed her first lawsuit against the Prestons on March 17, 2006. See Nails v.
Preston et al., 1:06cv246 (M.D. Ala. 2006). Like the instant lawsuit, Nails’ first suit also
arose out of alleged injuries to Nails when she was struck by a vehicle driven by Eugene
Preston and owned by Pauline Preston. On April 7, 2006, the Court dismissed Nails’ first
lawsuit without prejudice because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Nails
made two unsuccessful attempts to have this Court reconsider this ruling and then simply
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ANGELA DENISE NAILS,
) CASE NO.: 1:06-cv-798-MEF
EUGENE PRESTON, et al.,
(WO-Not Recommended for Publication)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in this action (Doc.
# 2). Upon consideration of the motion, it is
ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Upon
review of the complaint filed in this case, the court concludes that dismissal of the complaint
prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
On September 6, 2006, Angela Denise Nails (“Nails”) filed her second lawsuit in this
Court against Eugene and Pauline Preston (“the Prestons”) for injuries Nails allegedly
suffered when Eugene Preston struck Nails with a vehicle owned by Pauline Preston.
Case 1:06-cv-00798-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 3
Nails v. Preston et al
filed a new lawsuit with substantially similar a