Webb v. Smith et al

Filing 75

ORDER - Pursuant to this Courts sua sponte screening authority as set forth in 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court dismisses Plaintiff Webbs Amended Complaint against theunserved defendants Phillip LNU, Richard LNU, Brian LNU, Cr aig LNU, AJ LNU,Douglas LNU, S. Williams, Gary LNU, Ben LNU, Rick LNU, Chord LNU, J. Jones,Terry LNU, JD LNU, JR LNU, Eric LNU, Sig LNU, Haws LNU, Rich LNU, Hugh LNU,Al LNU, Peggy LNU, and Rhonda LNU (the Unserved Defendants). Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 3/21/2016. (jwt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
DAVID WEBB,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-213-DLR

ORDER
Pursuant to this Court’s sua sponte screening authority as set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court dismisses Plaintiff Webb’s Amended Complaint against the
unserved defendants Phillip LNU, Richard LNU, Brian LNU, Craig LNU, AJ LNU,
Douglas LNU, S. Williams, Gary LNU, Ben LNU, Rick LNU, Chord LNU, J. Jones,
Terry LNU, JD LNU, JR LNU, Eric LNU, Sig LNU, Haws LNU, Rich LNU, Hugh LNU,
Al LNU, Peggy LNU, and Rhonda LNU (the “Unserved Defendants”).
Plaintiff Webb proceeds in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under
the statute, the district court must “dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dismissal is only proper where it is “obvious that the plaintiff
cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an
opportunity to amend.” Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) citations and
quotations omitted); see also Nunn v. Relich, No. 15-1483, 2016 WL 929672, at *2 (10th
1

Cir. Mar. 11, 2016) (quoting id.). In determining whether dismissal is proper, the Court
“must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe those allegations, and
any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). The standard of review for dismissals
under § 1915(e) is the same as Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. Id.; see also Nunn, 2016 WL 929672, at *2 (10th Cir. Mar. 11, 2016) (quoting id.)
Here, dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the Unserved Defendants is proper.
Plaintiff’s claims in his Amended Complaint against the Unserved Defendants mirror
those against MVM, Inc. and Brent Wiechman. The Court dismissed those claims for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. No. 66. Accordingly, for the reasons set
forth in the Court’s Order dated February 18, 2016 (Doc. No. 66), Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint against the Unserved Defendants is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of March, 2016.

2