Elston v. State of Idaho

S UCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY S CREENING JUDGE - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ARTHUR ELSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00481-AKB
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY
SCREENING JUDGE
INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Arthur Elston’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 6) and
renewed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 5). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. This
matter was previously screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In its Initial Review Order (Dkt. 4),
the Court denied Plaintiff’s original in forma pauperis application without prejudice and dismissed
the Complaint (Dkt. 2) for failure to state a claim, granting Plaintiff leave to amend and providing
specific guidance regarding the deficiencies that needed to be cured. The Court now conducts a
second review.
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Any party instituting a civil action in a federal district court must pay the filing fee. 28
U.S.C. § 1914. On application, however, a party may proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
To qualify, a plaintiff must submit an affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay the filing fee while
still providing for the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331,
339 (1948).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis
(Dkt. 5). Based on the information provided, Plaintiff appears to meet the financial requirements
Case 1:24-cv-00481-AKB Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4

S UCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY S CREENING JUDGE - 2
to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis for purposes of initial review.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed by a litigant
proceeding in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. To state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is
plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although the Court construes pro se pleadings liberally, pro se status does not excuse
compliance with the basic pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A
complaint must identify defendants, allege facts showing how each defendant violated the
plaintiff’s rights, and state the relief sought. Conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.
Where a plaintiff has been granted leave to amend, the Court’s review on re-screening
focuses on whether the amended complaint cures the specific deficiencies identified in the prior
screening order.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
In its prior Initial Review Order, the Court dismissed the original Complaint because it
failed to state any cognizable claim, failed to allege supporting facts, failed to clearly establish
federal subject matter jurisdiction, named the State of Idaho as the sole defendant without
addressing sovereign immunity, and failed to identify any relief sought. The Court instructed
Plaintiff that any amended complaint must identify a legal theory, allege supporting facts, establish
jurisdiction, and name proper defendants.
Case 1:24-cv-00481-AKB Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4

S UCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY S CREENING JUDGE - 3
The Amended Complaint does not cure these deficiencies. In fact, it omits information that
was present, albeit deficiently, in the original pleading. The Amended Complaint lists only
Plaintiff’s name and address. It does not identify any defendant. The sections of the form complaint
designated for listing defendants are blank. A civil action cannot proceed without an identified
adverse party.
The Amended Complaint also fails to state any claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff asserts federal jurisdiction in conclusory fashion but does not identify any federal statute,
constitutional provision, or other source of law giving rise to a cause of action. The statement-of-
claim section contains no factual allegations describing any conduct, by any person or entity, that
violated Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff also does not request any form of relief.
In short, the Amended Complaint contains no defendants, no facts, no claims, and no
requested relief. It therefore fails to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff was provided clear notice of the deficiencies in his original Complaint and was
afforded an opportunity to amend. Rather than curing those deficiencies, the Amended Complaint
omits essential elements necessary to state any claim at all. Under these circumstances, the Court
concludes that further leave to amend would be futile.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED.
Case 1:24-cv-00481-AKB Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4

S UCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY S CREENING JUDGE - 4
2. 	Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 6) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
January 20, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00481-AKB Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4