Stephens v. United States Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim, granting the plaintiff leave to amend by September 10, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“Stephens’s IFP request is GRANTED” | agree with court The order recites that the plaintiff's income barely exceeds expenses, which satisfies the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The cited authority supports the proposition that complete destitution is not required. |
Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice“his complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend” | agree with court The court applied the screening standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The complaint contained conclusory allegations (e.g., 'ANTAGONIZED BY FREEMASONS') without factual support, failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate for a pro se plaintiff's initial complaint that fails to state a claim, as it allows for amendment. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for IFP and the screening requirement. It accurately applies the 'failure to state a claim' standard to the plaintiff's conclusory and factually deficient allegations. The decision to dismiss without prejudice is consistent with pro se litigation standards.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Timothy STEPHENS, Case No.: 25-cv-0582-AGS-DDL 4 Pant ORDER GRANTING IFP MOTION 5 || Vv. (ECF 2) AND DISMISSING 6 || UNITED STATES CORP., et al., COMPLAINT 7 Defendants. 8 Plaintiff moves to proceed without prepaying the court-filing fees. If granted the 7 right to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiffs need not prepay the usual $402 in fees. See 10 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Stephens’s i only income, disability payments, hardly exceeds his monthly expenses (see ECF 2, at 2), 2 so he may proceed without prepayment, see Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“[A] party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). IS Now the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous” or “fails 16 to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Stephens alleges he was “ANTAGONIZED” “BY FREEMASONS?” with “GOV’T” help, and he requests “televised military tribunals.” (ECF 1, at 4-5.) But aside from a broad allegation that he was “ATTACKED VERBALLY 19 AND TERRORIZED” after he “BECAME A PSYCHIC,” he provides no facts that support 20 his claims—which are premised upon a deprivation of “AM[]JENDMENTS 1, 4, 5, 6 a1 (KANGAROO) 8, 9, 13, 14.” Ud.) These allegations do not state a claim, and the requested 22 remedy likely exceeds this Court’s jurisdiction. Stephens’s IFP request is GRANTED, but 23 his complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. Any amended 24 complaint is due by September 10, 2025. 25 Dated: July 30, 2025 iG 26 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 28