Reed v. Miller, et al

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Complaint 2 is DISMISSED and Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed IFP 1 is DENIED. Signed on 3/10/2025 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 3/10/2025.) (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DANNI NOEL REED, also known as
SONIA CAMILLE ROBERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:25-cv-00261-MC
ORDER

REX MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Danni Noel Reed seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No.
1. The Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), must screen applications to proceed IFP and
dismiss any case that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive this review, a
complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff’s Complaint is also
subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plaint statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”
Plaintiff’s Complaint is almost entirely indecipherable and fails to allege an identifiable
claim under federal or state law. Plaintiff writes of “violations of many ADA laws, criminal laws,
constitution laws,” and “catastrophic multiple injuries,” but fails to allege facts to allow the Court
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

to infer how any Defendant violated those laws or caused those injuries. Even with the liberal eye
afforded to pro se litigants, the Court cannot determine what wrongs Plaintiff allegedly suffered
because of Defendants’ actions or inactions.
Because Reed’s complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir. 1980) (upholding a Rule
8(a) dismissal of “confusing, distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible pleadings”). Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed IFP, ECF No. 1, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _____
10th day of March, 2025.
/s/Michael McShane
____________________________
Michael McShane
United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER