Opinion ID: 169911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: W e review de novo the district court’s decisions to dismiss both of Zapata’s complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 3 See Trujillo v. W illiams, 465 2 Because Zapata specifically invoked § 1983, and because he sought only civil remedies, we do not interpret Zapata’s complaints to seek habeas relief from any state-court custody or conviction. 3 In a case where the court has permitted a plaintiff to proceed without the prepayment of fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides that, [n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that— (continued...) 3 F.3d 1210, 1214, 1215 (10th Cir. 2006). The district court may sua sponte dismiss an action under § 1915(e)(2) “for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 920 (2007). Before dismissing, however, it must be clear that “allowing [the plaintiff] an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.” Trujillo, 465 F.3d at 1224; see also Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1225 (10th Cir. 2002). Further, this court will liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. See Gaines, 292 F.3d at 1224; see also H aines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).