Poulson alleges Defendants violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. But for the reasons stated, those specific claims are not viable in this case. As noted, Poulson expressly identified specific legal claims he seeks to advance in this case. A complaint is frivolous if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” Franklin v. The court retains discretion in determining whether a complaint is “frivolous.” Denton v. In considering Poulson’s in forma pauperis request, the Court has authority to deny the request if the plaintiff’s proposed complaint is frivolous or without merit. In view of the required liberal construction, a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. Discussion Because Poulson is proceeding pro se the Court must construe his pleading liberally, and the pleading is held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” Haines v. § 30-14-101 and “state business contracts.” (Doc. In it he adds that Defendants violated Mont. 1997(d)(e) 14th Amendment, Discrimination, Libel, Slander, Defamation.” (Id.) 2 On January 25, 2017, Poulson filed an amended complaint. 2 at 6.) He alleges Defendants are liable for violating “Title II, 42 U.S.C. But Poulson asserts he was merely standing up for his “ADA, title II Anti-Discr. He states Defendants “fired” him as a customer because he is bi-polar, they cannot bill medicaid for his prescription, and they felt Poulson was threatening them. Plaintiff's Allegations Poulson alleges Defendants refused to fill a medical prescription he presented to them. Therefore, the Court will first consider whether Poulson’s pleading has merit, or whether it is frivolous and subject to dismissal. Nonetheless, “ district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Minetti v. 1 at 2.) Therefore, Poulson has failed to provide the Court sufficient information to enable it to properly rule upon his motion. But he failed to specifically describe each source of that income, the amount he receives, the frequency with which he receives the income, and whether he expects to continue to receive it. In paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s motion Poulson stated he receives disability or workers compensation 1 benefits. The Court finds Poulson’s motion is incomplete. It is well established that the district court has discretion in determining whether a litigant is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. A court may grant a litigant leave to proceed in forma pauperis if the applicant’s affidavit sufficiently indicates that the applicant cannot pay court costs and still provide the necessities of life for himself and his family. Introduction and In Forma Pauperis Application Plaintiff Kermit Poulson filed a pleading in this matter, together with his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. NORCO MEDICAL SUPPLY, and HARRINGTON MEDICAL SUPPLY, Defendants. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION KERMIT TY POULSON, CV 17-5-M-DLC-JCL Plaintiff, ORDER, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION vs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |