Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04381/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04381-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM PAUL STREGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04381-JST 

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(E)(2)(B)

Re: ECF No. 15

Pro se Plaintiff Adam Strege previously filed with the Court a complaint, ECF No. 1, and 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis, but screened the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). ECF No. 12. In its order dismissing the complaint, the Court granted Plaintiff 21 

days to amend his complaint. Id. at 2. 

Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 15. Having reviewed the 

Amended Complaint, the Court still cannot discern any viable legal theory or grounds for relief. 

Because Plaintiff’s complaint the lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, see Jackson v. Arizona, 

885 F.2d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 1999), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000), the Court will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing, ECF 

No. 5, as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04381-JST Document 16 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 1